A question for Vorkosigan re Mark

[TedM]

Hi Vorkosigan,

I haven't still reviewed your entire work on Mark, but my impression from passages/ideas we discussed in the past is that while you have found a large quantity of evidence for your belief that Mark's Jesus is entirely fictional, the quality of the evidence and associated arguments varies significantly. I was wondering if you might point to your top 3 or 4 evidences/arguments for your position re: Mark, if that can be done. I'd like to take another look at your position but am hoping to save time by focusing in on your strongest evidence. Would you mind doing that?

thanks,

ted

[Vorkosigan]

Hi Vorkosigan,

I haven't still reviewed your entire work on Mark, but my impression from passages/ideas we discussed in the past is that while you have found a large quantity of evidence for your belief that Mark's Jesus is entirely fictional, the quality of the evidence and associated arguments varies significantly. I was wondering if you might point to your top 3 or 4 evidences/arguments for your position re: Mark, if that can be done. I'd like to take another look at your position but am hoping to save time by focusing in on your strongest evidence. Would you mind doing that?

thanks,

ted

Well, actually, my interpretation of Mark is where I lay out all the evidence in a cogent argument. But I am withholding it from public view at the moment as I flog the book to publishers.

The case for Markan fiction is cumulative. The strongest evidence is that the narrative and the passion are created by paralleling the OT, and that the sayings are actually either Markan invention or borrowed from Hellenistic/Roman ones. But you have to do a pericope by pericope review to see the whole thing.

Vorkosigan

[TedM]

Well, actually, my interpretation of Mark is where I lay out all the evidence in a cogent argument. But I am withholding it from public view at the moment as I flog the book to publishers.

The case for Markan fiction is cumulative. The strongest evidence is that the narrative and the passion are created by paralleling the OT, and that the sayings are actually either Markan invention or borrowed from Hellenistic/Roman ones. But you have to do a pericope by pericope review to see the whole thing.

Vorkosigan

Dang, I was hoping there is an easier way :) Surely some narratives are more compelling than others, some OT parallels are more compelling than others, and some pericopes are more compelling than others, no? (one last try) :)

ted

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan had an interesting post a while back to IIDB listing all his parallels in Mark to the OT on a pericope basis. Vork, do you know where that post is?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Amaleq13]

Vorkosigan had an interesting post a while back to IIDB listing all his parallels in Mark to the OT on a pericope basis. Vork, do you know where that post is?

best,
Peter Kirby

Is this the thread you mean?:

How much of Mark is from OT? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535)

[Peter Kirby]

Is this the thread you mean?:

How much of Mark is from OT? (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535)

That's it! Thanks.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[TedM]

That's it! Thanks.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Thanks Kirby. I see from that thread that I"m not the only one that thinks that many of the parallels are not convincing. And, I see that Vorkosigan did reference a few he thinks are particularly strong. Those are the ones that should be discussed and examined for an understanding of what Mark might have been trying to do: The strongest parallels to any other possible influences (OT, Paul, various sects, and other) should be identified and then examined for a theme that makes sense. If there is something to them they should answer the question: What was Mark trying to do and why?

ted

[Vorkosigan]

Thanks Kirby. I see from that thread that I"m not the only one that thinks that many of the parallels are not convincing.

Like anything else, some are going to be more convincing than others. The problem is that one would reject the paralleling only if one already had a commitment to historicity as a default position. This is one of the biggest problems one has in dealing with this topic.

Imagine if there was no Christianity and no insistence that Mark was history, and you found Mark on the road. You wouldn't for a second believe it history, once you realized that large chunks of it were constructed by paralleling and by taking extant sayings and assigning them to Jesus. For the weak parallels, you'd simply toss up your hands and say either that the paralleling is not as strong,, or in certain cases that there were several possibilities and no culprit can be identified (for example, where do the 12 disciples come from? So many twelves in the OT).

Imagine if anyone read the greek novels that way. Imagine if you read Luecippe and Clitophon, and observed that in some parts paralleling was weak and others strong. Would you conclude that in areas where paralleling was weak that those must be historical? No one would conclude that. Nor should you with Mark, nor would you, unless you carried around a default assessment method that everything that wasn't provably fiction must be fact. Whereas, the vast amount of reasonable secure fictions in Mark, as well as known construction techniques, call into question the historicty of everything in the Gospel.

And, I see that Vorkosigan did reference a few he thinks are particularly strong. Those are the ones that should be discussed and examined for an understanding of what Mark might have been trying to do: The strongest parallels to any other possible influences (OT, Paul, various sects, and other) should be identified and then examined for a theme that makes sense. If there is something to them they should answer the question: What was Mark trying to do and why?

Why would the construction methodology reveal what Mark was trying to do? And if the theme makes sense, how would you demonstrate that it had been encoded by the writer of Mark? And further, why would a coherent theme in the typology be related to what Mark was trying to say? It's not as easy as you think to relate construction techniques to what the author was trying to say, especially since he may have said different things to different audiences.

Vorkosigan

[TedM]

Like anything else, some are going to be more convincing than others. The problem is that one would reject the paralleling only if one already had a commitment to historicity as a default position. This is one of the biggest problems one has in dealing with this topic.

While a prior commitment is one reason a person might reject parallels, it isn't the only valid reason. Another might be that a particular parallel is not convincing, and reminds them of the bible code attempts. The question that leads one to conviction on the matter is not the quantity of parallels but the quality of them. If we have exact duplicates of words or events in Mark from other sources then we can deduce something from that because the source then becomes convincing. But, if we conclude that the sources for Mark are not clear we can't deduce as much.


Imagine if there was no Christianity and no insistence that Mark was history, and you found Mark on the road. You wouldn't for a second believe it history, once you realized that large chunks of it were constructed by paralleling and by taking extant sayings and assigning them to Jesus. For the weak parallels, you'd simply toss up your hands and say either that the paralleling is not as strong,, or in certain cases that there were several possibilities and no culprit can be identified (for example, where do the 12 disciples come from? So many twelves in the OT).

I'm not so sure. If the book alludes to real historical places people and events, and it contains certain passages which seem to argue for a historical basis because they appear to be addressing embarrasing historical issues that readers knew about that were related to the person the book is about, then I would wonder if there is a historical core to that person and if so, how much. It becomes more than just a 'toss up' because it is crucial to Christianity, but even without Christianity I would for at least a second consider it quite possible that some aspects may in fact be historical.

Why would the construction methodology reveal what Mark was trying to do? And if the theme makes sense, how would you demonstrate that it had been encoded by the writer of Mark? And further, why would a coherent theme in the typology be related to what Mark was trying to say? It's not as easy as you think to relate construction techniques to what the author was trying to say, especially since he may have said different things to different audiences.Vorkosigan

I didn't mean to say it would be easy. I guess there are many questions related to Mark's intention, some that would be answered by construction methodololgy and some that wouldn't be. My guess is that the more sources for Mark and the more ambiguity of sources, the less we will be able to figure out how much of Mark is history and how much isn't. Until all the sources are clearly identified and seen to be very strong parallels, I don't see how we can ever conclude that Mark is an account of activities of an entirely fictional character. As it stands the best we can do is determine for ourselves what strong parallels say about Mark's attempts to write based on history and what we think are the most likely sources for the weak or non-existant parallels--tradition, Mark's imagination, or real history.

ted

[Vorkosigan]

But, if we conclude that the sources for Mark are not clear we can't deduce as much.

Well, exact wording does exist.

I'm not so sure. If the book alludes to real historical places people and events, and it contains certain passages which seem to argue for a historical basis because they appear to be addressing embarrasing historical issues that readers knew about that were related to the person the book is about, then I would wonder if there is a historical core to that person and if so, how much. It becomes more than just a 'toss up' because it is crucial to Christianity, but even without Christianity I would for at least a second consider it quite possible that some aspects may in fact be historical.

Which issues would you consider embarrassing, and why? And further, how can it be an embarrassing historical issue if you have not yet decided whether the book was history? There's plenty of embarrassment for the heroes of innumerable fictional tales.

You also raise the issue of "historical core" but how do you know that there is one. And what about Mark would stimulate you to imagine that parts of it were history?

I didn't mean to say it would be easy. I guess there are many questions related to Mark's intention, some that would be answered by construction methodololgy and some that wouldn't be. My guess is that the more sources for Mark and the more ambiguity of sources, the less we will be able to figure out how much of Mark is history and how much isn't. Until all the sources are clearly identified and seen to be very strong parallels, I don't see how we can ever conclude that Mark is an account of activities of an entirely fictional character. As it stands the best we can do is determine for ourselves what strong parallels say about Mark's attempts to write based on history and what we think are the most likely sources for the weak or non-existant parallels--tradition, Mark's imagination, or real history.

But if Mark were not the source of a religion that insists Jesus was real, what about it would convince you that we were dealing with real history somewhere in it? It can't be embarrassment, for that is only applicable when you have decided a tale is history -- I mean, no one believes that the Lord of the Rings is history because Frodo failed at the end, embarrassingly. So what prior judgment about text signals that there is some history in it?

Vorkosigan

[Ben C Smith]

(Ted, I hope you do not mind my butting in for a moment.)

Vorkosigan, you appear to regard pericope construction by paralleling (the OT, for one) as a clear indicator of fictitiousness:

You wouldn't for a second believe it history, once you realized that large chunks of it were constructed by paralleling and by taking extant sayings and assigning them to Jesus.

What of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21? There a firmly historical event (the fall of the holy city in 70) is painted up in brilliant OT colors. Few passages in the synoptics carry more OT parallelism than these.

C. H. Dodd even thought he could demonstrate that Luke was written before 70, on the assumption that, if the author knew of the actual fall of Jerusalem, he would have described it in more concretely historical terms (like Josephus, I suppose) instead of leaning so heavily on the LXX. You appear to be making this same assumption (quote taken from Doherty and the 2nd Century Apologists (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2592377#post2592377)):

The question is why, if Mark knew of a historical Jesus, he chose to overwrite him completely with other sources, and borrow sayings from the common pool, and create his crucifixion out of the Old Testament.

I could reformulate the Dodd argument along these same lines: The question is why, if Luke (or Matthew, or Mark) knew of the historical fall of Jerusalem, he chose to overwrite it completely with OT parallels and the language of the LXX.

Thinking out loud.

Ben.

[Amaleq13]

I could reformulate the Dodd argument along these same lines: The question is why, if Luke (or Matthew, or Mark) knew of the historical fall of Jerusalem, he chose to overwrite it completely with OT parallels and the language of the LXX.

Do you think it is relevant that they aren't describing the historical event but creating a prophecy to be placed in the mouth of Jesus?

[S.C.Carlson]

Do you think it is relevant that they aren't describing the historical event but creating a prophecy to be placed in the mouth of Jesus?

Well, Josephus described another Jesus (ben Ananias) predicting the fall of Jerusalem prior to its destruction. Of course, I have not been able to decide whether that's fact or fiction (e.g. a parody of one of the gospels?), so perhaps that doesn't move the ball down the field very much.

[yalla]

If the person who wrote "Mark" had described the temple destruction etc as a historical event that would had completely blown the ''cover story'' that his gospel was allegedly an eyewitness [verbatim speeches of JC etc] account set 40 years prior, that the "prophecy'' was the result of after the event knowledge not supernatural power, and the whole thing was a-historical.
By using the Tanakh, this unknown person could claim the validity and authority of Judaism for his story- the "it's all predicted in the scriptures/typology" concept.

The references to the temple c70 are pretty specific in "Mark" and was clearly recognized as such by his successor "Luke" who added some corroborating detail [19.41 for example] so I think it's ''dead parrot'' [Monty Python speak for bleeding obvious] that author"Mark" IS referring to 70ce.

Now to go along with this blows some pretty major holes in the Christian apologetic line re the identity of the author, the date of authorship, and the whole question of credibility. So we get strained arguments to attempt to build the case that the author was not clearly referring to 70ce. Examples include..the desolating sacrilege is the Caligula statue [that was never built]..it was the bloke whose name I forget that desecrated the temple a 100plus years prior and the C.h.Dodd defence mentioned above.

I am currently reading Dodd's "The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel" first published in 1953. It's interesting, but when I skipped to his appendix where he adresses "The Historical Aspect" he reveals his preconceptions. In his words "John" describes.."the eternal reality conclusively revealed and embodied in an historical Person, who actually lived, worked, taught suffered and died..."p444.
Such a preconception makes it extremely difficult for a believer like Dodd to admit that the first gospel was written at least 40 years after the events allegedly described.

[Ben C Smith]

Do you think it is relevant that they aren't describing the historical event but creating a prophecy to be placed in the mouth of Jesus?

It may be. I am interested to see whether Vork thinks it is.

It seems, however, that from our point of view it might be a very good move to place an historically detailed and accurate prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem on the lips of Jesus, much like Daniel 11.2-39 places an historically detailed and accurate prophecy of Hellenistic history on the lips of Daniel, or like 1 Kings 1.1-3 places a detailed and accurate prophecy of the reforms under Josiah on the lips of an anonymous prophet. (Note that it does not matter in this case whether we take the fulfillment in 2 Kings 23.15-18 as genuine history; what matters is that it is narrated as such.) Yet Luke et alii, if they wrote after 70 (as I think at least two of them did), passed by such an opportunity (especially if any of them knew the Jewish Wars of Josephus!) in favor of echoing the LXX. Why?

If echoing the scriptures was that important to them, then what does that do to any presumption that they should have described historical events purely as historical events, minimizing the connections to the OT?

I would like to use gospel material that is not predictive prophecy as an example that would eliminate the potential interference that you point out, Amaleq, but unfortunately the candidates that come to mind (the crucifixion of Jesus, for instance, which I myself take to be a brute fact of history, yet painted in OT colors as usual) might not be above suspicion as history in a discussion on this board (we might get sidetracked by arguments that the Testimonium is a total fabrication, the note in Tacitus is either fabricated or based on faulty information, Mar Saba is referring to somebody else, and so forth; I have not yet seen, on the other hand, any attempt to deny that Jerusalem fell in 70).

Another observation. Luke tells us point-blank in the book of Acts that Christians were the sort of people who might see something happen and then turn around and describe it almost exclusively in terms of OT prophecy. Pentecost is a case in point. In the narrative, Peter sees the phenomenon of tongues of flame and a miracle involving language translation, but when he stands to speak about it, he quotes Joel at length about dreams and visions and signs in the heavens, none of which literally describes the scene before him. (Note again that it does not matter to the argument whether we think any such thing really happened at Pentecost circa 30; what matters is that Peter is presented as the kind of person who would refer to a concrete event in terms of OT prophecy.)

If the early Christians habitually pointed up events, whether fictional or nonfictional, in OT terms, then the utility of OT parallelism as a criterion for fictitiousness is greatly compromised.

Thanks for the insightful comment.

Ben.

[TedM]

Which issues would you consider embarrassing, and why? And further, how can it be an embarrassing historical issue if you have not yet decided whether the book was history? There's plenty of embarrassment for the heroes of innumerable fictional tales.

I would find the inability of Jesus to perform miracles in his hometown, and the apparant defense of Jesus to his relationship to David and the fact that so many of the miracles were not witnessed by people as puzzling and unnecessary since the main figure of the story is presented as some kind of wonderful hero. I'm not as widely read as you--can you give examples of other hero's in fiction who are represented as diety but who have evidence that goes against that? These puzzles are solved by the idea that the book's author felt like he HAD to address them as a response to readers who knew the real history already.


You also raise the issue of "historical core" but how do you know that there is one. And what about Mark would stimulate you to imagine that parts of it were history?

The people, places, and events are taken from real history so I would at least wonder if they were made into a fictional story or not. How many examples in all of literature do we have of a work the size of Mark that places a diety/wonder-worker in specific historical places and interacting with known persons who lived just some 30-50 prior to the writing--possibly just 10 years after the deaths of prominent leaders in the faith who taught of the same figure as only a heavenly diety to thousands of followers? Since we have ZERO evidence that Mark's audience were 'in on' the farce and the ONLY evidence we have is that it was taken as a serious work of history/biography then I'd like a comparable piece in other literature that shows that Mark probably could have gotten away with fooling people who would have cared whether it was a historical truth or not.

ted

[Amaleq13]

It may be. I am interested to see whether Vork thinks it is.

I will offer the following prophecy:

Vorkosigan will state that the author's reliance upon Hebrew Scripture does not establish the story to be fiction so much as it denies that it can be asserted as history. So let it be written, so let it be done. :D

It seems to me that your point would be valid if the author was describing the fall of Jerusalem and chose to use Scripture but that isn't really what he is doing. What is being described is the prophecy allegedly uttered by Jesus and the only way your question works in that context is if we know that the prophecy is a historical fact. Do you see what I mean?

Perhaps there really was a guy named "Jesus" who spoke a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple but it seems just as possible that Mark's author might feel compelled to put such a prediction in the mouth of his Lord after the fact. Would a historical Jesus have phrased such a prophecy in Scriptural terms? Possibly. Would an author have continued to rely on Scripture to recreate a historical prophecy that nobody recorded verbatim? Probably. But it also seems probable that this same author would have continued to rely on Scripture to fabricate a prophecy that was never actually spoken.

If the early Christians habitually pointed up events, whether fictional or nonfictional, in OT terms, then the utility of OT parallelism as a criterion for fictitiousness is greatly compromised.

I agree but I consider it to be a more effective as argument against any alleged historicity of the story than a confirmation of fiction.

[Amaleq13]

...the ONLY evidence we have is that it was taken as a serious work of history/biography...

What evidence are you thinking of here?

I would suggest that the treatment of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke is evidence that it was not taken as a serious work of history/biography but as a story that could be modified to fit a given author's differing beliefs.

[Peter Kirby]

I agree but I consider it to be a more effective as argument against any alleged historicity of the story than a confirmation of fiction.

How can parallelism support non-historicity without supporting fiction? I'm not saying that historicity and fiction are the only options. But what is the theoretical basis for claiming non-historicity, or probable non-historicity, based on the parallels, without also (and priorly) claiming fiction? To get more to the point, how do you think that parallelism supports non-historicity?

I would suggest that the treatment of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke is evidence that it was not taken as a serious work of history/biography but as a story that could be modified to fit a given author's differing beliefs.

Did Josephus take the Hebrew Bible as containing literal narrative or "history"?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[andrewcriddle]

Well, Josephus described another Jesus (ben Ananias) predicting the fall of Jerusalem prior to its destruction. Of course, I have not been able to decide whether that's fact or fiction (e.g. a parody of one of the gospels?), so perhaps that doesn't move the ball down the field very much.
Jesus ben Ananias comes in the 'Jewish War' written c 80 CE.

IMO it is unlikely that Josephus was at that time sufficiently familiar with the Gospel story to parody it. The 'Antiquities' in c 93 CE might be another matter.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C Smith]

1.

Would a historical Jesus have phrased such a prophecy in Scriptural terms? Possibly.

2.

Would an author have continued to rely on Scripture to recreate a historical prophecy that nobody recorded verbatim? Probably.

3.

But it also seems probable that this same author would have continued to rely on Scripture to fabricate a prophecy that was never actually spoken.

Number 2 involves a real, historical person uttering a real, historical prophecy, the recreation of which deliberately echoes scripture. Number 3 involves a possibly fictitious person never uttering such a prophecy at all, the fictitious composition of which likewise deliberately echoes scripture.

How then does identifying the deliberate scriptural echoes help us decide between whether the original event is historical or fictitious?

Let me ask the question this way: Granted that retrojecting a predictive prophecy does not automatically entail echoing past prophecy (see Daniel 11 and 1 Kings 13.1-3, among others), why do the synoptic evangelists choose to echo past prophecy when they retroject (if indeed that is what they are doing) the prophecies made on Olivet? If the answer is that they simply like to anchor their material in the OT scriptures for whatever reason (to validate Jesus with the Jews, to squeeze Christianity under the umbrella of Judaism in the eyes of Romans and other pagans, to fulfill the old predictions at last, to prove that Jesus was the messiah, or what have you), then what is to prevent them from taking an actual historical incident and casting it in terms of the OT? Would we not expect them to do this?

Ben.

[TedM]

What evidence are you thinking of here?

I would suggest that the treatment of Mark by the authors of Matthew and Luke is evidence that it was not taken as a serious work of history/biography but as a story that could be modified to fit a given author's differing beliefs.

Good point. I stated my position too ambiguously. I said the only evidence we have is that they took it as a serious work of history/biography. I should have said they the only evidence is that they took it as a serious work of history/biography but not as God's infallable word, which therefore made it subject to their own additions.

Changes don't indicate a belief that the original story was entirely fictional, but they could indicate a belief that certain details were believed to have been in error. I suggest that the fact that at least 3 others repeated the story of a historical man, and that 2 of them (Luke and John) clearly say this was about a real man is evidence that they believed Mark wrote about a real man even if Mark didn't. Otherwise we have 4 long gospels (not to mention the others) that refer to Jesus as a man yet never let on that they know they are talking metaphorically only. That doesn't seem very likely to me.

ted

[Chris Weimer]

Vork, regarding the question in your second post on this thread about where the twelve came from, I don't think you have to look any further than the twelve tribes of Israel, with Judah being the "traitor" to Jesus aka Christians (something to do with Jerusalem?).

[Amaleq13]

How can parallelism support non-historicity without supporting fiction?

I have apparently not been clear enough. I think the only thing parallelism can really accomplish is cast doubt on any claim of historicity in the story. It doesn't establish non-historicity but it certainly seems to make it difficult to assert history. I don't see how we can ever know if the event actually happened unless we also have external corroboration.

Did Josephus take the Hebrew Bible as containing literal narrative or "history"?

If he felt free to change the stories to fit his personal beliefs, I don't see how one could say he took it "as a serious work of history/biography" in the sense Ted seemed to be suggesting (ie a modern sense of "this is the way it happened and anything else is simply untrue").

Did anyone in the ancient past have such a conception of what we call "history"?

[Amaleq13]

How then does identifying the deliberate scriptural echoes help us decide between whether the original event is historical or fictitious?

I don't think it does but the use of Scripture to tell a story seems to me to make any argument for historicity more difficult if not impossible to establish. If there is history in there, I'm afraid it has been so thoroughly repainted with Scripture that we have no hope of identifying it.

...what is to prevent them from taking an actual historical incident and casting it in terms of the OT? Would we not expect them to do this?

Nothing and yes. :) I think the only hope for establishing historicity involves external corroboration for any given event or detail. Unfortunately for those who wish to make such a claim, that sort of corroboration appears to be exceedingly rare and, when present, tends to only confirm rather uninteresting aspects of the story.

[Amaleq13]

Changes don't indicate a belief that the original story was entirely fictional, but they could indicate a belief that certain details were believed to have been in error.

I suppose that is possible but then we still end up not knowing what really happened or even if anyone has given us an accurate account. How can we tell the difference between a personal preference and a more reliable source of factual information?

I suggest that the fact that at least 3 others repeated the story of a historical man, and that 2 of them (Luke and John) clearly say this was about a real man is evidence that they believed Mark wrote about a real man even if Mark didn't.

It is consistent with that assumption but it isn't really evidence the assumption is correct. It is also consistent with the assumption that the subsequent authors really liked the idea of depicting the life of the pre-crucified Christ in a story but didn't care for the specific way it was originally accomplished.

Otherwise we have 4 long gospels (not to mention the others) that refer to Jesus as a man yet never let on that they know they are talking metaphorically only. That doesn't seem very likely to me.

You find it more likely that an author writing a metaphorical story would break out of the metaphor to explain it was a metaphor? It seems to me that obviates the whole point of using metaphor to tell a story.

[Ben C Smith]

...the use of Scripture to tell a story seems to me to make any argument for historicity more difficult if not impossible to establish....

...the only hope for establishing historicity involves external corroboration for any given event or detail.

This is a different level of argumentation than the actual use of OT parallelism as a negative criterion (id est, one whose purpose is to establish nonhistoricity). I certainly understand being wary of finding historicity, especially on the level of finer detail, amongst the OT parallels, but I cannot see pressing every parallel to mean that the OT itself was the source of the story in the first place.

I agree that the use of parallels obscures things and makes things harder for the historian. I disagree that the proper response is to then chalk the whole enchilada up to sheer invention, as when in that other thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535) Vorkosigan (A) counts up how much of Mark parallels the OT, (B) converts that material into a percentage (about 65%), and then (C) concludes: Mark is fiction, Andrew. Every parallel appears to have fallen on the fiction side of the scale.

That is no mere non liquet as you seem to be advocating. That is using OT parallelism as a starkly negative criterion.

Ben.

[TedM]

You find it more likely that an author writing a metaphorical story would break out of the metaphor to explain it was a metaphor? It seems to me that obviates the whole point of using metaphor to tell a story.

If it were one author I can see it, but not 4+ others. I admit though that the case of historicity is complicated by the many parts that appear to be/include fiction within the works.

ted

[Amaleq13]

That is no mere non liquet as you seem to be advocating. That is using OT parallelism as a starkly negative criterion.

I initially considered parallelism as such, myself, but evidence that parallels were typically used to describe known historical events seems to make that a dubious use.

[Amaleq13]

If it were one author I can see it, but not 4+ others.

I don't understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply to subsequent authors rewriting the original. That they retained the metaphorical nature of the original narrative seems to suggest the same appreciation of and respect for the style of story-telling that argues against obviating the fundamental purpose.

These subsequent authors weren't critics or teachers so I don't see why we would expect them to expose the metaphor. They are doing the same thing as the original author only, in their opinion, in a better way. We should no more expect them to obviate their own metaphors than we would the original.

[TedM]

I don't understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply to subsequent authors rewriting the original. That they retained the metaphorical nature of the original narrative seems to suggest the same appreciation of and respect for the style of story-telling that argues against obviating the fundamental purpose.

These subsequent authors weren't critics or teachers so I don't see why we would expect them to expose the metaphor. They are doing the same thing as the original author only, in their opinion, in a better way. We should no more expect them to obviate their own metaphors than we would the original.

GLuke not only didn't expose it, he said he got information from eyewitnesses. GJohn not only didn't expose it, he implied that his information came from a close disciple. And, we have not a clue from any of the 6 works that the authors really knew or believed this man never lived on earth recently and in places they mentioned. Further, we have no evidence that the early Christians who would have been very interested in these works thought that they were metaphors either. It seems to me that a conspiracy style cover-up is required to support your suggestion that these authors knew it was all a metaphor. The evidence we have -- at least 6 gospels talking about a man on earth, some insisting he was a man, no clue from them of belief otherwise, and no clue/tradition that there was ever belief or acknowledgement/understanding in the Christian community that they were intended to be understood as metaphor, and no clue that this was a topic of controversy in early Christianity at all--all this evidence, or whatever one wants to categorize it as, seems to me to reduce the likelihood that this metaphor approach was a theme that ever existed all in the first place to "very small".

ted

[freigeister]

I don't think it does but the use of Scripture to tell a story seems to me to make any argument for historicity more difficult if not impossible to establish. If there is history in there, I'm afraid it has been so thoroughly repainted with Scripture that we have no hope of identifying it.

Not necessarily. Some of us hold that an accurate understanding of the Gospels can be attained through the application of sound exegetical tools: knowledge of the language and culture in which they originated, understanding of the first principles upon which they are based, and application of general rules of logic and reason.

[Amaleq13]

GLuke not only didn't expose it, he said he got information from eyewitnesses. GJohn not only didn't expose it, he implied that his information came from a close disciple.

I agree that both authors are trying to create the impression that their version of the story should be considered the most reliable but I would think it is equally clear, given the differences between them, that at least one of them is not being truthful. I would suggest that there is really no good reason to believe either version of the story was based on anything anyone who actually experienced the events described had related.

It seems to me that a conspiracy style cover-up is required to support your suggestion that these authors knew it was all a metaphor.

You seem to be ignoring that these authors would have considered the metaphor to be conveying The Truth so there wouldn't have been anything to "cover-up".

...no clue/tradition that there was ever belief or acknowledgement/understanding in the Christian community that they were intended to be understood as metaphor...

No, we just have a rather large gap in time between authorship and Christian interpretation. You assume that the way the later Christians understood the text is the way earlier Christians understood the text but is there any reason to make that assumption?

[Amaleq13]

Some of us hold that an accurate understanding of the Gospels can be attained through the application of sound exegetical tools: knowledge of the language and culture in which they originated, understanding of the first principles upon which they are based, and application of general rules of logic and reason.

Believing one has an "accurate understanding" of the Gospels and establishing that any given detail can be relied upon as historically accurate are entirely different things.

Feel free to start a thread in which you establish what can be reliably considered historical in the Gospel stories.

[freigeister]

Believing one has an "accurate understanding" of the Gospels and establishing that any given detail can be relied upon as historically accurate are entirely different things.

Feel free to start a thread in which you establish what can be reliably considered historical in the Gospel stories.

What I am getting at is that we cannot assess the statements within a text without first assessing the text as a whole.

Let me give you an example.

In 1613, a native Andean wrote to king Philip III of Spain. The full text of his letter is posted, in Spanish, here (http://www.kb.dk/elib/mss/poma/).

Extracts in English are here (http://www.mtp.hum.ku.dk/authors/adorno/ncbg/0008.htm):

Here is a quotation:

I decided to write the history and origins and descent and the famous deeds of the first kings and lords and captains, our grandfathers and lords, and the life of the Indians and their generations and origins from the first Indian called Uari Uira Cocha Runa, Wari Runa, who descended from Noah of the Flood, Uari Runa, and Purun Runa and Auca Runa [people of the era of war]

Now, there is obviously mythological content in this document, as we see with the reference to Noah. And obviously much else is unverifiable. Yet, I don't think that anyone would say that this document is worthless, or that we cannot derive important observations from it. It is important for what is: a native American's tale of his own history.

Likewise with the Gospels. They are important for what they are: testimonies regarding a remarkable man. Once we understand and accept that fact, the question of details can be treated in context. If you do not accept the fundamental nature of the Gospels, that they testify to a man in the best way that the authors could manage, then there is little sense in quibbling about this or that fact. It would be the same as if you refused to accept the letter of Poma as a history of the Incas, and demanded that the facts in it be externally verified before you did so.

[Amaleq13]

What I am getting at is that we cannot assess the statements within a text without first assessing the text as a whole.

It seems to me what you are getting at is that it will be much easier to find claims that are reliably historical if we first assume that they are there and procede from that assumption. I think a better way to approach the stories is to refrain from making any assumptions about historicity from the beginning.

They are important for what they are: testimonies regarding a remarkable man.

That seems to me a terribly inadequate starting description of the stories since it carries with it an implied assumption of the very historicity you intend to establish. I think a more adequate (ie less inherently biased) description of the Gospels is to say they are narratives conveying the central religious beliefs of the authors about a sacrificed/resurrected Messiah who is, in actuality, the divine entity known as the Son of God.

These stories may or may not contain claims that can be considered historically reliable and our initial understanding makes no assumptions either way. I realize this might make efforts to establish historicity more difficult but applying circular reasoning, while admittedly making the task easier, creates some problems with regard to reliability I think.

[freigeister]

I think a more adequate (ie less inherently biased) description of the Gospels is to say they are narratives conveying the central religious beliefs of the authors about a sacrificed/resurrected Messiah who is, in actuality, the divine entity known as the Son of God.

That's great! Now that I know what your starting point is, I can enter into meaningful discussion with you. I will start by pointing out that your view of the Gospels is exactly that of mainstream Christian religion.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

freigeister: They are important for what they are: testimonies regarding a remarkable man.

Who was mythologized presumably by devotees of his teachings in an era when supernatural "miracles" were reportedly commonplace (not just committed by Jesus) and accepted without skepticism by the overwhelming majority of humans at the time as self-attesting evidence.

In short, no big deal. Until you get to Paul, the cult pusher if you will :D.

Remember when you were a kid and you were trying to impress your friends and you said some outlandish thing that you thought you heard or perhaps actually did hear and when you were challenged the response was, "It is so true! My Dad told me!"

Remember that? Extrapolate that to an entire region made up of primarily non-educated, superstititious nomadic farmers, craftsman, business owners, fishermen, etc., all baking in the desert sun all day under the oppressive rule of a certifiable sociopath, long before mass communication without the ability to read newspapers, having little or no use for critical thinking due to the fact that everyone was in some sort of cult, etc., etc. and you've got the ability to make up a myth about someone who is actually standing right in front of you and no one would question it, including the person you're making up the myth about!

MORE: Once we understand and accept that fact, the question of details can be treated in context.

Such as the passion narrative. The reality would have been (if it happened at all) that the Romans had a seditionist executed for crimes against Rome. That or a murderer, the two most typical uses of crucifixion.

Most likely, if Jesus actually existed, he would have been the leader of a group of "terrorists" to the Romans (what we would call a "freedom fighter") and probably the head of some sort of insurgency/resistance group to the occupation that also and incidentally (as far as Rome was concerned) was cult-based (anti-orthodoxy).

The reality would have had little to nothing to do with any members of the Sanhedrin conspiring with Pilate and certainly nothing to do with any religious/deity claims, or of claiming to be the "King of the Jews" (since no such title existed in Judaism and the Romans wouldn't have given two shits about some local Rabbi going around claiming to be the "King of the Jews" anymore than anyone in the Bush Cabal would care if someone went around claiming to be "President of the Fallon Gong").

So, if the Romans mocked Jesus as "King of the Jews" as claimed and put a crown of thorns on his head, then they obviously did so because they wanted to humiliate a popular local rabbi-seditionist who they were executing as an example, because he was leading others to rebel against the occupation. Other Jews; other members of his "unit."

From there you get the martyrdom of Jesus; the myths of resurrection (thereby vanquishing the enemy in classic Hellenistic symbolism); and Roman-apologetic "the victors write the history" revisions until, voila, GMark; clearly written by someone with little or no real understanding of Judaism, intent on exonerating the Romans and turning a popular martyr (whose cult no doubt continued his seditionist insurgency against Rome) into a friend of the Romans, betrayed instead by his own people, the evil and horrible "Jews" (always plural and non-specific).

Paul takes this same tact and you've got your anti-Judaic cult that is so clearly Roman in design (preaching servitude and obedience to earthly authority) that one might even argue that it was entirely concocted by Romans :D.

MORE: If you do not accept the fundamental nature of the Gospels, that they testify to a man in the best way that the authors could manage, then there is little sense in quibbling about this or that fact. It would be the same as if you refused to accept the letter of Poma as a history of the Incas, and demanded that the facts in it be externally verified before you did so.

You're forgetting that no matter what, you're talking about cult members mythologizing their leader. We know the gospels cannot be historical documents, as the authors recount entire conversations that they weren't present to hear, such as Jesus with Satan in the desert.

Have you ever read any of the Reverend Moon's followers' stories about him? Or the fawning way members of the Jonestown cult (before the coolaid, of course) described how Jim Jones was a god or David Koresh was a prophet, etc.,etc.,etc.?

If you are already in the mindset that such people like the fictionalized Jesus of Nazareth exist and that a being named Jehovah, for example, "guides" your hand, then you can very easily make up whole chapters of utter nonsense that you are absolutely convinced to be the "words of God" and do so completely innocently, because that's the power of cult mentality; of believing something is true in spite of the evidence (or lack thereof).

Just read Revelation, or travel throughout the Bible belt and you'll find thousands of people telling you the most remarkable things and all of them fervently believing that what they are telling you (no matter how embellished it has become over the years of retelling) is absolutely, 100% true "I swear to GAWD" and you know damn well that maybe, maybe 1% of what they're saying even remotely happened the way they're saying it.

That's why the distinction of "historical document" is so important, as it implies a level of intelligent consideration for relating corroborative, objective facts about events that actually happened as opposed to events that could not possibly have happened so far as any author of history could have written about.

Once you dispense with the notion that the gospel authors were your high school history teachers dilligently relating facts, you have one of two choices; mythologists or propagandists.

If you think they were honest cult members, then you have to go with mythologists. If you think as I do, then you should seek immediately psychiatric care :D.

I mean, then you go with (Roman) propagandists.

[Vorkosigan]

(Ted, I hope you do not mind my butting in for a moment.)

Vorkosigan, you appear to regard pericope construction by paralleling (the OT, for one) as a clear indicator of fictitiousness:

Yup.

What of the destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21? There a firmly historical event (the fall of the holy city in 70) is painted up in brilliant OT colors. Few passages in the synoptics carry more OT parallelism than these.

Actually, Mark 13 does not work by OT paralleling but by OT citation, different thing entirely. Mark constructs off the OT in two ways. First, by using OT events as frameworks for the Jesus story, and second, by creating individual verses through citation. Hence, there's a misunderstanding of what is meant by paralleling.

That said, I have discovered a set of weak paralleling in there that Dodd was not aware of. Mark 1-14 parallels the Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings. In Mark 13 Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple....

Jesus gives instructions to his disciples
Jehu gives instructions to his people to gather the priests of Ba'al.

no stone on another
Great stone of Temple of Ba'al thrown down

Jerusalem Temple destroyed
Temple of Ba'al destroyed

abomination standing in temple
Ba'al Temple used as latrine

There are several ways this might be coincidence or more likely -- construction by tropes -- Temples get destroyed a lot in ancient literature and the resemblences are probably common among all those destructions -- it requires a lot of people, the defenders have to be killed, the holy parts tossed away or destroyed, and the temple itself destroyed, and then the site profaned. Pretty generic, from 70 AD to Ayodha. So one need not see this parallel.

However, in the context of many other Elijah-Elisha cycle tales, it might be there.

I could reformulate the Dodd argument along these same lines: [I]The question is why, if Luke (or Matthew, or Mark) knew of the historical fall of Jerusalem, he chose to overwrite it completely with OT parallels and the language of the LXX. Thinking out loud.
Ben.

You are correct in noting that the existence of a historical tale inside a set of parallels is prima facie evidence that some of the other parallels are also history. Unfortunately, since the alleged history has been overwritten by the OT, how will you demonstrate it without a reliable outside vector? Especially since the criteria for locating history in there are dysfunctional.

Note further that the Elijah-Elisha tales in Kings provide not only fodder for individual pericopes but the backbone that drives the tale as a whole -- the paralleling occurs at several levels. This type of paralleling was common in Hellenistic fiction, BTW. Mark is built with not only the narrative conventions but also the construction techniques of Hellenistic fiction.

It looks, from my vantage point, that Mark has incorporated the Temple's destruction into his narrative parallels -- very common, Mark is replete with allusions to plundered and destroyed Temples. Mark's hypertextuality is strongly temple-focused.

Besides, pulling in history into fiction is not at all uncommon in Hellenistic fiction -- it is how it works. Mark has done that elsewhere. Pilate is a historical figure, but there's an OT parallel for the whole mess in Mark 15:1-20, which Mark signals through his usual technique of referring to it elsewhere in the Gospel. No, I'm not telling you, saving that one for the glorious day when I publish (it's based on Weeden's new book, which should be coming out this fall). Other historical characters are treated the same way -- the chief priests and Pharisees become the priests of Ba'al in Mark's EEC parallels, a very nasty polemic. Mark imports historical context and then sets in the OT framework.

Mark does the same with Jesus. He doesn't know anything about Jesus save what he read in Paul, but he does know that Jesus was crucified, even though he doesn't know a thing about that crucifixion. So he sets it in the OT context, using Daniel 6 as the story frame, and packing it around with references to Psalm 22. But the things that happen to Jesus are the things that happen to the heroes of Hellenistic fiction. Here's a passage from the opening of my interpretation of Mark....

In the ancient Greek novel Chaereas and Callirhoe the hero and heroine are summoned before the Great King of Persia for a trial. Callirhoe, the heroine of the novel, whose beauty is likened to that of the gods, makes a triumphant entrance into the city of Babylon to cheering crowds. The ladies of Babylon, jealous of her great beauty, send a beautiful woman of their own city to defeat her in a contest of looks, but Callirhoe wins handily.

There are two trials mooted in Chaereas and Callirhoe, the first about a forged letter, the second to determine who the real husband of Callirhoe is. The second is never actually held as the Great King falls in love with Callirhoe and wants to keep her for himself. He postpones the trial while the city holds a festival, then a revolt in Egypt occurs and the novel's various protagonists all head there one way or the other.

Even a short description like this makes clear that the scene of Jesus entering Jerusalem is actually composed of story elements familiar from Hellenistic novels. The triumphal entry, being taken for a divine being, the trials, the jealousy- driven enemies, the local potentate presiding over the key trial, the festival, the reappearance after a (supposed) death by crucifiction...

How do I know Mark's tale is fictional? Because at every level it is built...

verses from OT citation, Paul
details from OT paralleling, Paul
story from from OT stories
events and stories from conventions of hellenistic fiction
construction techniques of hellenistic fiction
tropes common throughout the middle east.

If you pick any one level, you can say "But there could be history in there...." And there could be. But the cumulative weight of fiction is very great, and IMHO, decisive. Mark knows nothing of any Jesus tradition. He is creating a narrative for a specific purpose, probably recruiting or baptism.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

This is a different level of argumentation than the actual use of OT parallelism as a negative criterion (id est, one whose purpose is to establish nonhistoricity). I certainly understand being wary of finding historicity, especially on the level of finer detail, amongst the OT parallels, but I cannot see pressing every parallel to mean that the OT itself was the source of the story in the first place.

But unless you had some a priori commitment to There's History in There! why would you ever bother to go looking for history in Mark? There's no good reason, based on a study of the text iself.

I agree that the use of parallels obscures things and makes things harder for the historian. I disagree that the proper response is to then chalk the whole enchilada up to sheer invention, as when in that other thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122535) Vorkosigan (A) counts up how much of Mark parallels the OT, (B) converts that material into a percentage (about 65%), and then (C) concludes: Mark is fiction, Andrew. Every parallel appears to have fallen on the fiction side of the scale.

That is no mere non liquet as you seem to be advocating. That is using OT parallelism as a starkly negative criterion. Ben.

I know you disagree, Ben. Everyone who is some kind of Christian disagrees. The problem is that you can't offer any reason to think that there is any history in Mark. If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it? If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major? It's not like this is a sometime thing. Almost every story in Mark draws on the OT, and Mark often tells you where he got it from one way or another (and if he doesn't, that fussbudget Matthew certainly will). The few stories that are not OT in origin have a narrative function, and of course, are so totally bound up with the supernatural that they are certainly fiction -- sometimes both (as in the Gerasene Demoniac, for example, though that has OT echoes too).

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

I would find the inability of Jesus to perform miracles in his hometown, and the apparant defense of Jesus to his relationship to David and the fact that so many of the miracles were not witnessed by people as puzzling and unnecessary since the main figure of the story is presented as some kind of wonderful hero.

OK, let's imagine that Jesus' inability to perform miracles in his hometown is embarrassing. So if Frodo's failure to complete his mission. So is Huck Finn''s attitude toward Jim, which he later comes to regret. I could go on. The point is that before you can apply the criterion of embarrassment to a particular event, you need to know whether the author is committed to writing history or not. How did you confirm that with Mark? Merely that a tale reflects negatively on Jesus in your subjective view does not in fact mean that something is history -- it might have a didactic or political function.

I'm not as widely read as you--can you give examples of other hero's in fiction who are represented as diety but who have evidence that goes against that?

Does Mark represent Jesus as a deity? Where does he do that?

These puzzles are solved by the idea that the book's author felt like he HAD to address them as a response to readers who knew the real history already.

You've just asserted something you don't have evidence for to support something you don't have evidence for.

The people, places, and events are taken from real history so I would at least wonder if they were made into a fictional story or not.

So are many elements of Greek fiction.

How many examples in all of literature do we have of a work the size of Mark that places a diety/wonder-worker in specific historical places and interacting with known persons who lived just some 30-50 prior to the writing--possibly just 10 years after the deaths of prominent leaders in the faith who taught of the same figure as only a heavenly diety to thousands of followers?

1. How do you when Mark was written? I can make a case for at least three different times from 70-135.
2. How many fictional works do you know that make use of figures who lived near the writer's time? Answer (milions)
3. What specific historical location is Jesus placed in? What's interesting about Mark is that it doesn't have any "historical" locations, just geographical ones. Jesus does not show up during key historical events of the period. Jesus travels across a landscape bereft of social tension, civil war, etc.
4. If Mark really was writing while people from the beginning were still around, why are the pillars of the church depicted so fictionally and negatively? Either he is writing long after (and doesn't know anything) or his negative depiction has some political or didactic function (and there's no history). I think both options are correct, actually.

Since we have ZERO evidence that Mark's audience were 'in on' the farce and the ONLY evidence we have is that it was taken as a serious work of history/biography then I'd like a comparable piece in other literature that shows that Mark probably could have gotten away with fooling people who would have cared whether it was a historical truth or not.

We have no evidence about Mark's audience either way. It might be more constructive to think about it in terms of different audiences. Certainly most people hearing Mark would not catch any of its extensive parallels and allusions, just as many people hearing Chaereas and Callirhoe would not catch the allusion to Aegospotami in the battles at the end, or many people hearing Xenophon's Ephesian tale would probably not realize that Habrocomes' first escape from a cross is borrowed from Herodotus, nor would many listeners have caught the way the opening sequences of each book of Daphnis and Chloe prefigure that section of the tale, or the way in Leukippe and Clitophon the four wines mentioned in a song from the Iliad at the beginning of book 2 each are associated with gods whose myths will control the action in that book.

But certainly some audiences would...

And further, it might also be more constructive to think about how Mark was used and not what it is. IMHO Mark is a recruiting document, not a document from or to a community. I see Mark as being performed (like many other exegetes), probably in conjunction with missionary plants in the audience, just as many missions do today. The reader is up there whaling away, and in the back, or perhaps during breaks, the missionary who knows the scriptures explains how the text shows that the OT prefigures Jesus. The extensive OT paralleling is there not just to create a figure, but also to validate that created figure. The jewish scriptures were not well-known of course, but they had a rep for being old and wide, some certain prestige. Imagine if you are an illiterate slave or menial worker and some recruiters for Christianity show up, with Mark as their document, and read it, and explain it to you. How would you receive that document?

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

Vork, regarding the question in your second post on this thread about where the twelve came from, I don't think you have to look any further than the twelve tribes of Israel, with Judah being the "traitor" to Jesus aka Christians (something to do with Jerusalem?).

Yeah, except that the disciple call in Mark 1 is taken from the call of Elisha, and there's Elisha plowing with twelve oxen, and there is even reference to a pair of oxen (James and John, a pair of brothers). There are just too many, and no way to choose....

[Vorkosigan]

Likewise with the Gospels. They are important for what they are: testimonies regarding a remarkable man.

Are they "testimonies?" One could just as well argue that LoTR is a testimony to a remarkable hobbit.

Once we understand and accept that fact, the question of details can be treated in context.

The problem is that I don't understand or accept that fact, and the context of the details is fiction.

If you do not accept the fundamental nature of the Gospels, that they testify to a man in the best way that the authors could manage, then there is little sense in quibbling about this or that fact.

That's Christian doctrine on the "fundamental nature" of the gospels. But I don't think it is valid to permit Christian a priori doctrine interfering with the way the gospels are analyzed. Surely it would be bad methodology to accept the gospels as any X, Y, or Z prior to your exploration of them. You can decide what they are only after you have studied them and compared them to many other different kinds of documents.

Vorkosigan

[Rick Sumner]

You are correct in noting that the existence of a historical tale inside a set of parallels is prima facie evidence that some of the other parallels are also history. Unfortunately, since the alleged history has been overwritten by the OT, how will you demonstrate it without a reliable outside vector? Especially since the criteria for locating history in there are dysfunctional.

I believe this is missing Ben's point. He's not arguing that things are historical. He's suggesting that you don't provide reasonable grounds to rule it out--that your negative criteria is reversible (and, in fact, there can be little doubt that it is--he just reversed it with the temple prophecy. We can add to that (as you and I have agreed previously) the execution of John the Baptist--John really was executed).

Ben isn't, at least in his challenge to your negative criteria, making a positive case for anything. He's simply asserting, contrary to your suggestion both in this thread and previous threads, that the couching of a narrative in OT terms isn't evidence for or against historicity, because it's demonstrably consistent with both positions.

His argument, at the end of the day, is remarkably similar to ones you've put forth against multiple attestation, or against embarassment (your analogy to LotR on the latter comes immediately to mind). He's putting the criteria against an instance where we know the answer isn't what the criteria suggests it should be, thus demonstrating the criteria to yield a false result. He doesn't need to demonstrate history with an "outside vector" or otherwise to do that.

This isn't to say that such inquiry isn't worthwhile (for literary criticism, for example), just that it has limited merit in assessing historicity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

[JoeWallack]

OK, let's imagine that Jesus' inability to perform miracles in his hometown is embarrassing. So if Frodo's failure to complete his mission. So is Huck Finn''s attitude toward Jim, which he later comes to regret. I could go on. The point is that before you can apply the criterion of embarrassment to a particular event, you need to know whether the author is committed to writing history or not. How did you confirm that with Mark? Merely that a tale reflects negatively on Jesus in your subjective view does not in fact mean that something is history -- it might have a didactic or political function.



JW:
Thought I'd take a break from the fascinating discussion of whether misusing the definite article in Greek can be considered misusing the definite article in Greek and make a comment here. "Mark" has a Contrived and Ironic pattern of First Acceptance but then Rejection. This is a Literay Technique which heightens the Rejection by reaching it from Acceptance. Richard Carrier has koined this "reversed expectation". "Mark" often uses the key phrase "Amazed/astonished/surprised/marvelled" to frame these stories with the Amazed in a Positive sense followed by Amazed in a Negative sense. The skill of this author is illustrated by how many different ways he can do this:

John (messenger) is accepted by all.
Angel is not listened to by anyone.

Jesus is accepted by God.
Jesus is forsaken by God (the point of the "author" here was I think that even Jesus gave up on himself - the final reason for everyone else to)

The disciples accept Jesus.
The disciples abandon Jesus.

Jerusalem accepts Jesus as King.
Jerusalem rejects Jesus as King.

Pilate accepts Jesus as innocent.
Pilate condemns Jesus.

Probably the best example of this though are the two stories of Jesus in his hometown. The author has practically copied his own story to make it almost impossible to miss the Irony:

NIV
1.21 "They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil[e] spirit cried out, 24"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
25"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" 26The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." 28News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee."

NIV
6.1 "Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."


JW:
Now what changed between the first and second visit? Nothing. I don't think the author intended to give history here. He was making a figurative point. First Jesus was Accepted (while he was alive) and then he was Rejected (when he died).



Joseph

GRAVE, n.
A place in which the dead are laid to await the coming of the medical student.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

[freigeister]

Are they "testimonies?" One could just as well argue that LoTR is a testimony to a remarkable hobbit.

Bear in mind that I specified that we use basic exegetical tools: knowledge of the language and culture in which the document originated, understanding of the first principles upon which it is based, and application of general rules of logic and reason. We know what LoTR is: a twentieth century novel. We know that the Gospels, whatever they are, are not that.

The problem is that I don't understand or accept that fact, and the context of the details is fiction.

The context of the Gospels is that of the Judaism of 2000 years ago. Fiction was simply not part of the Jewish thought-world of the time. There are of course fictional elements; but the intent of the Gospels, like all Jewish literature of the time, is to record the truth, not to create fiction.

Surely it would be bad methodology to accept the gospels as any X, Y, or Z prior to your exploration of them.

Of course. But we must also make sure to apply from the outset what we know about their context.

You can decide what they are only after you have studied them and compared them to many other different kinds of documents.

Comparisons can indeed aid exegesis: we can attain a better understanding of what the Gospels are by comparing them to the Talmud or to the letter of the Incan writer or to Hellenistic novels. Ultimately, though, exegesis is not comparison, but knowledge of the document itself. It is in the same way that we understand nature: nature cannot be understood by comparison to something else, but only through itself. In the words of the father of rationalist Bible interpretation, Spinoza:

By working in this manner everyone will always advance without danger of error - that is, if they admit no principles for interpreting Scripture, and discussing its contents save such as they find in Scripture itself - and will be able with equal security to discuss what surpasses our understanding, and what is known by the natural light of reason. (Spinoza, TTP, pt.2, chap.vii (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/2spnt10.txt))

[Amaleq13]

The context of the Gospels is that of the Judaism of 2000 years ago. Fiction was simply not part of the Jewish thought-world of the time.

I would be very much interested in the basis for this assertion.

I have to wonder whether it can even be considered vaguely true given the existence of at least one college course (http://www.ncf.edu/marks/syllabi/2004AncientJXNovels.htm) and at least one text (Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195151429/InternetInfidels)) entirely devoted to what you claim did not exist and specifically at a time you deny it existed. :confused:

(ETA) Here is a new one due out this month: Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1589831667/InternetInfidels)

[Vorkosigan]

Bear in mind that I specified that we use basic exegetical tools: knowledge of the language and culture in which the document originated, understanding of the first principles upon which it is based, and application of general rules of logic and reason. We know what LoTR is: a twentieth century novel. We know that the Gospels, whatever they are, are not that.

Well, that much is true. We do know that the Gospels are not twentieth century novels. :) They're second century novels.

Can you explain how we know this?

The context of the Gospels is that of the Judaism of 2000 years ago. Fiction was simply not part of the Jewish thought-world of the time. There are of course fictional elements; but the intent of the Gospels, like all Jewish literature of the time, is to record the truth, not to create fiction.

I think Amaleq has certainly demonstrated that Jews were as enthusiastically into fiction as anyone else, as they left quite a few fictional tales -- Ruth, Esther, Third Maccabees, etc. Can you explain how you know the intent of the Gospels? I'd sure like to know that one.,

Of course. But we must also make sure to apply from the outset what we know about their context.

Yes, and that context includes a great many fictional tales that deal with crucifixions, tombs, resurrections, trials, city entrances, divine beings, and so on.

Comparisons can indeed aid exegesis: we can attain a better understanding of what the Gospels are by comparing them to the Talmud or to the letter of the Incan writer or to Hellenistic novels. Ultimately, though, exegesis is not comparison, but knowledge of the document itself.

Knowledge of the docment itself is concerned with knowledge of related and concurrent documents.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

I believe this is missing Ben's point. He's not arguing that things are historical. He's suggesting that you don't provide reasonable grounds to rule it out--that your negative criteria is reversible (and, in fact, there can be little doubt that it is--he just reversed it with the temple prophecy. We can add to that (as you and I have agreed previously) the execution of John the Baptist--John really was executed).

No, I understand Ben's point. I was simply inviting him, like I do all historicists, to demonstrate that there is history in Mark. In point of fact the account of John's death, while overwritten with Esther, is probably not from the original writer of Mark. But Ben has misconstrued mine -- OT paralleling is not the only reason I claim Mark is fiction, and Ben's construction of OT paralleling is too narrow.

Ben isn't, at least in his challenge to your negative criteria, making a positive case for anything. He's simply asserting, contrary to your suggestion both in this thread and previous threads, that the couching of a narrative in OT terms isn't evidence for or against historicity, because it's demonstrably consistent with both positions.

It may be consistent with both positions, but where does its weight lie? Obviously not with historicity. You can, if you like, take on faith that Jesus was really from Galilee and really did miracles and spouted Cynic philosophy on his way to be executed. But there's no way to demonstrate it. The position "you can't prove it is history" is the one I take in my commentary at the moment, because that is the safe and supportable one, and also because I would like to get published and so must behave like a good little scholar. But it is not what I believe. And now that I have a whole barrel of evidence of how Mark is constructed from the ancient Greek narratives, Mark is definitely looking like fiction.

His argument, at the end of the day, is remarkably similar to ones you've put forth against multiple attestation, or against embarassment (your analogy to LotR on the latter comes immediately to mind). He's putting the criteria against an instance where we know the answer isn't what the criteria suggests it should be, thus demonstrating the criteria to yield a false result. He doesn't need to demonstrate history with an "outside vector" or otherwise to do that.

The problem here is that Mark is constructed by OT paralleling in three important ways, and Ben's objections only address one of those ways. First, OT paralleling is the backbone framework of the story -- the use of the Elijah-Elisha tale as the framework for the story from Mk 1-14. Second, the use of particular sequences from various OT books as intermediate level frames for specific pericopes for the story -- the way Esther underlies the John the Baptist , or Samuel underlies Mark 14, or Daniel 6 underlies the crucifixion. Third, the creation of specific verses through citation and reworking of the OT. The term "OT paralleling" hides a robust use of the OT at every level in Mark.

So to get back to JBap, Esther is used as the intermediate frame, but Elijah-Elisha is not. On its face Mark had a source for the tale. Similarly, while Daniel 6 supplies the intermediate frame for the story of Jesus' crucifixion, Mark sourced the historical datum from Paul. Etc. Note that because JBap's death is overwritten by Esther and reworked by a redactor, there's no historical data in Mark. It is only because we have the account in Josephus that we have any idea what happened at all.

This isn't to say that such inquiry isn't worthwhile (for literary criticism, for example), just that it has limited merit in assessing historicity.

Which is probably why OT paralleling at all levels is not the only reason I claim Mark is fiction. And I must disagree -- its weight is very great, which is why when historians discover a passage in later history that parallels an earlier one -- the Renaissance and later writers had a habit of imitating the ancients -- they go hunt down outside vectors to see what really happened.

Vorkosigan

[Johnny Skeptic]

Hi Vorkosigan,

I haven't still reviewed your entire work on Mark, but my impression from passages/ideas we discussed in the past is that while you have found a large quantity of evidence for your belief that Mark's Jesus is entirely fictional, the quality of the evidence and associated arguments varies significantly. I was wondering if you might point to your top 3 or 4 evidences/arguments for your position re: Mark, if that can be done. I'd like to take another look at your position but am hoping to save time by focusing in on your strongest evidence. Would you mind doing that?

thanks,

ted

Ted, since for some strange reason you have always refused to tell us what your wolrd view is, I find it difficult to reply to your posts because I don't know what your agenda are. What I would like to know is what you are trying to accomplish in this forum. Why do you care whether or not Mark is fiction, or any other part of the Bible for that matter? In another thread you and I debated the size of the 1st century Christian Church. I said that you were a fundamentalist Christian and you replied "I never said that," but neither did you say anything to the contrary. Do you believe that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? I simple yes or no will do. You oppose Vorkosigan's arguments, but what are your own arguments? What do you believe happened back then? Do you care at all? If Mark's Jesus is not fictional, what is it to you? It is a fact that you have an agenda at this forum or you wouldn't be here. From the content of your posts in this and other threads, most new readers who don't know that you have refused to state what your world view is will definitely assume that you are a fundamentalist Christian because you argue like one. So, it seems to me that either you are a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to admit it because you don't want to have to back up assertions, or that you enjoy debating just to pass the time.

[TedM]

I agree that both authors are trying to create the impression that their version of the story should be considered the most reliable but I would think it is equally clear, given the differences between them, that at least one of them is not being truthful. I would suggest that there is really no good reason to believe either version of the story was based on anything anyone who actually experienced the events described had related.

One can always point to conflicts between accounts as a reason to discount any claim made within them. It can be discounted as being a lie, a later interpolation, a misunderstanding, or an honest error. I guess my argument in the end primarily comes down to silence of anyone explicity saying these are stories or were believed to be stories at some point before they were believed to be references to an actual man. And further, my own semi-conviction about it is based on a 'sense' from reading of the gospels and Acts of some amount of historical truth perhaps more than my ability to display it.


You seem to be ignoring that these authors would have considered the metaphor to be conveying The Truth so there wouldn't have been anything to "cover-up".

I think it is unrealistic to think that a fictional creation of all of the specific miracle accounts would have been considered the "Truth" to those who made them up. Rather, I think they came from real traditions-- and as such some of them probably would have been derived from real events, even if no such miracles actually happened. But, I may be naive. :) To me, either the author(s) really didn't believe it was the Truth, or they did believe it and it came from actual events.


No, we just have a rather large gap in time between authorship and Christian interpretation. You assume that the way the later Christians understood the text is the way earlier Christians understood the text but is there any reason to make that assumption?

If we have references by Ignatious to a historical Jesus around 100AD and Mark wasn't written until 90AD, where is the gap? Where is the suggestion in any of the documents within 50 years of the gospels that people doubted that Jesus had really even walked the earth? And, if Mark wrote around 60-70AD, where is the evidence that any of the Paul converts and others had a problem with his blatant contrasting representation of Christ from any they had been taught, as would have been expected because of the time period Mark put Jesus in? To me any way you slice it there would have been tremendous dissention in the Christian community over this very basic issue, yet we don't see it. The lack of this kind of evidence to me is a decent reason to make that assumption.

ted

[TedM]

Ted, since for some strange reason you have always refused to tell us what your wolrd view is, I find it difficult to reply to your posts because I don't know what your agenda are.

My agenda is to try to discover for myself interesting likely historical truths based on what seems reasonable given what we know. It's that simple. What's your agenda?

ted

[TedM]

OK, let's imagine that Jesus' inability to perform miracles in his hometown is embarrassing. So if Frodo's failure to complete his mission. So is Huck Finn''s attitude toward Jim, which he later comes to regret. I could go on. The point is that before you can apply the criterion of embarrassment to a particular event, you need to know whether the author is committed to writing history or not. How did you confirm that with Mark? Merely that a tale reflects negatively on Jesus in your subjective view does not in fact mean that something is history -- it might have a didactic or political function.

Sure, but IMO Mark presents Jesus as the Messiah. The Messiah probably would not be expected to fail at doing mighty works--thus the request in the gospels for 'signs', but yet he does fail in Mark. That is something I wouldn't expect of a Messiah, though I might expect it of Frodo or Huck Finn.


myThese puzzles are solved by the idea that the book's author felt like he HAD to address them as a response to readers who knew the real history already.

You've just asserted something you don't have evidence for to support something you don't have evidence for.

You don't find it puzzling for the a man Mark represents to be a very public Messiah to not be able to perform miracles, to defend not being in the line of David, and to have so many miracles witness only by one or two people? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for the greatest literary genius of all time to not have put those elements in his story?

We have no evidence about Mark's audience either way.

I haven't studied the issue, but would think that the content reveals a lot about who the audience was.

And further, it might also be more constructive to think about how Mark was used and not what it is. IMHO Mark is a recruiting document, not a document from or to a community...Imagine if you are an illiterate slave or menial worker and some recruiters for Christianity show up, with Mark as their document, and read it, and explain it to you. How would you receive that document?

Perhaps. Do you think the document Papias refers to is contained within Mark? Why or why not?

ted

[Johnny Skeptic]

Ted, since for some strange reason you have always refused to tell us what your wolrd view is, I find it difficult to reply to your posts because I don't know what your agenda are.

My agenda is to try to discover for myself interesting likely historical truths based on what seems reasonable given what we know. It's that simple. What's your agenda?

In your opinion, is the bodily resurrection of Jesus a historical truth? Do you believe that it matters what world views people have? If so, which ones to you think are the best world views?

Regarding historical truths, is your interest mainly limited to historical truths regarding claims made in religious books, and specifically in the Bible? Do you care very much whether or not Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River or whehter or not Christopher Colubus discovered America?

My agenda is to help destroy fundamentalist Christianity because fundamentalist Christians frequently attempt to legistlate religion, for example their attempts to prohibit physician assisted suicide and same sex marriage. I don't care what people believe, but I care a lot what they do. I believe in live and let live, but the majority of fundamentalist Christians do not even though they claim that they do.

[Ben C Smith]

Vorkosigan:

Actually, Mark 13 does not work by OT paralleling but by OT citation, different thing entirely.

All right, I accept this distinction. However, the chapter that I had foremost in mind was Luke 21, not Mark 13. And Luke 21 both cites and appears to parallel the OT (verses 20-24 coming from the early going of 2 Kings 25):


Jerusalem surrounded by armies (Luke 21.20; 2 Kings 25.1).
The flight from Jerusalem (Luke 21.21; 2 Kings 25.4, though the Marcan wording is based on 1 Maccabees 2.28, and Luke knew both Mark and 1 Maccabees).
The hardships of siege (Luke 21.22-23; 2 Kings 25.3, though the Lucan wording comes straight from Mark).
Exile (Luke 21.24; 2 Kings 25.11).


This OT basis even explains the apparent Lucan anomaly that Jesus tells his disciples to flee Jerusalem only after they see the besieging forces around the city. The question often posed is how anybody could have escaped Jerusalem once Titus had surrounded the city with his legions. The answer is in 2 Kings 25.4, in which the men of war manage to skirt the Babylonian lines by night, right in the middle of the siege.

Yet none of this paralleling means that Titus did not really surround Jerusalem with armies, that nobody really tried to escape the city, that the siege was not really a very difficult time, or that the Jews were not really scattered to the four winds after the fall of the city. The first, third, and fourth are detailed in Josephus, and the second is narrated in Eusebius, History of the Church 3.5 (take it for what it is worth).

Another observation. Paralleling is not really so difficult a feat that it must be done on the fly in free composition, is it? Luke managed to incorporate materials from Mark into his parallelism, as well as other OT passages (the days of vengeance in Luke 21.22 derive from a frequent motif of Isaiah; see 34.8, for example), and still keep (at least!) 3 of my four points firmly rooted in the historical facts of the fall of Jerusalem.

You are correct in noting that the existence of a historical tale inside a set of parallels is prima facie evidence that some of the other parallels are also history. Unfortunately, since the alleged history has been overwritten by the OT, how will you demonstrate it without a reliable outside vector?

Paralleling need not go so far as overwriting. I stated in another post that I do regard historicity as harder to recover, especially on the level of details, when parallels have been exploited.

Look at Luke 21.20-24 and consider what we could learn about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 if this passage were our only extant source for the event, preserved on some scrap of papyrus from the desert. We would learn (presuming that we read between the lines and recognized that this is a retrojected prediction)…:


…that a siege of Jerusalem took place.
…that the siege itself was very hard on the Jerusalemites.
…that the besiegers won.
…that the surviving Jerusalemites were scattered afterward.


We might, of course, also surmise that some fled the city during the siege, and this may or may not be accurate. We might, in other words, get some bad information along with good. But such a contingency is not unique to the NT by any means.

Especially since the criteria for locating history in there are dysfunctional.

I have become suspicious of all criteria for or against historicity. You yourself make a good argument, for example, against the positive criterion of embarrassment, and I have come to agree that it is an index of relative antiquity, not of absolute originality. But then you rely on other criteria, such as the negative criterion of OT parallelism and citation, which are just as problematic.

Besides, pulling in history into fiction is not at all uncommon in Hellenistic fiction -- it is how it works.

Agreed. (And that, I think, is even how modern fiction often works.) But such an observation absolutely depends on our prior judgment as to authorial intent and genre. Making the case that Mark is intentional fiction comes before individual decisions on individual pericopes, not after.

…saving that one for the glorious day when I publish (it's based on Weeden's new book, which should be coming out this fall).

I look forward to that. Your stuff is fun and informative. (I like Weeden, too, though often disagreeing; his XTalk decimation (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8301) of Kenneth Bailey (http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html) on informal controlled oral tradition was spine-tingling.)

Even a short description like this Chaereas and Callirhoe] makes clear that the scene of Jesus entering Jerusalem is actually composed of story elements familiar from Hellenistic novels.

Why one would have to go so far afield to find raw elements for the triumphal entry when Zechariah and the Maccabees are so handy I do not understand.

But the triumphal entry points up a specific problem with your criterion for ahistoricity. Somebody has certainly built OT parallels into the entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. But how can one tell whether this somebody is the author or the participants?

Take the following snippet from Josephus, for example (Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99, English translation slightly modified from Whitson):

Φαδου δε της Ιουδαιας επιτÏ?οπευοντος γοης τις ανηÏ? Θευδας ονοματι πειθει τον πλειστον οχλον αναλαβοντα τας κτησεις επεσθαι Ï€Ï?ος τον ΙοÏ?δανην ποταμον αυτω Ï€Ï?οφητης γαÏ? ελεγεν ειναι, και Ï€Ï?οσταγματι τον ποταμον σχισας διοδον εχειν εφη παÏ?εξειν αυτοις Ï?αδιαν. και ταυτα λεγων πολλους ηπατησεν. ου μην ειασεν αυτους της αφÏ?οσυνης ονασθαι Φαδος, αλλ εξεπεμψεν ιλην ιππεων επ αυτους, ητις απÏ?οσδοκητος επιπεσουσα πολλους μεν ανειλεν, πολλους δε ζωντας ελαβεν, αυτον δε τον Θευδαν ζωγÏ?ησαντες αποτεμνουσι την κεφαλην και κομιζουσιν εις ΙεÏ?οσολυμα. τα μεν ουν συμβαντα τοις Ιουδαιοις κατα τους Κουσπιου Φαδου της επιτÏ?οπης χÏ?ονους ταυτ εγενετο.

Now it came to pass while Fadus was procurator of Judea that a certain enchanter, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan, for he told them that he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them, who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of the leadership of Cuspius Fadus.
By your standards, this story is a rip-off of the crossing of the Jordan in Joshua 3. That Theudas called himself a prophet, but was actually a fraud, is constructed on Deuteronomy 18.15-22. Fadus taking the head of Theudas to Jerusalem is obviously concocted from David taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem in 1 Samuel 17.54 (which act, since Jerusalem supposedly still belongs to the Jebusites at this stage, opens a whole can of worms in the OT history, but that is not pertinent here). Slaying many and taking many alive is Josephan redaction, as this motif appears elsewhere in Josephus.

In other words, this pericope by your method is clearly a Josephan fiction built up from OT references on the sentence level and the OT story of crossing the Jordan on the narrative level. The story transvalues the successful crossing of the Jordan by the children of Israel because Josephus has an abiding interest in blaming the Jewish War on a generation of frauds like Theudas instead of on (inter alia) absolute Jewish incompatibility with foreign rule.

The same would have to hold true of the story of the Egyptian in Antiquities 20.8.6 §167-172 and the miscellaneous frauds of Antiquities 20.8.10 §188, and of other stories of insurrectionists in Josephus. In each of these the participants are acting according to an OT script, usually one based on either the exodus from Egypt or the conquest of Canaan. We know that Josephus knows his OT, so surely he has simply spun all of these incidents whole-cloth from the scriptures, right?

Or is it possible that the participants themselves (Theudas, the Egyptian, and the rest) knew the OT stories too? Could it not be that they were symbolically reenacting the events of yore in hopes of expelling the Romans by miraculous or providential means, just like the children of Israel had expelled the Canaanites by miraculous and providential means?

Capable scholars have argued that Jesus, his disciples (especially?), and the crowds are doing exactly that in the case of the triumphal entry. Why is it impossible, or even improbable, that the participants in that story are the ones drawing on the OT for inspiration? That Jesus chose to ride a donkey precisely in order to tap into Zechariah 9.9?

Now, perhaps such a view is entirely mistaken. Perhaps Mark did freehand the whole thing from the OT, some Hellenistic παÏ?ουσια motifs and novelistic elements, and his own vivid imagination. When I read through your historical commentary (http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark11.html) on this pericope, however, I do not find even the barest hint of a discussion arguing for free composition over and against a decision made by Jesus and his followers, no hint of an argument explaining why it was Mark alone who decided to play things out along scriptural lines. It is as if you found the parallels and cites, and that was enough. The parallels and cites themselves ruled out historicity.

I know you disagree, Ben. Everyone who is some kind of Christian disagrees.

I used to be virtually a mythicist (many moons ago). My present form of Christianity was made possible only by coming to see some semblance of historicity where before I had seen none.

But my religious beliefs are not the issue. What counts is the argument.

The problem is that you can't offer any reason to think that there is any history in Mark.

It is not my purpose in this thread to offer any reason to think that there is history in Mark. It is my purpose to critique an approach that rules out historicity prematurely. I am not (at this stage) arguing for a positive. I am arguing for a non liquet. And, if I ever do argue for a positive, it is unlikely to be based on a list of criteria.

If Mark is history, where are the reliable methods for uncovering it?

Very good question, but outside the present inquiry, and certainly not decidable (is that a word?) by finding parallels and citations.

If Mark knew real traditions, why would be bother to parallel some other story every time Jesus does something major?

Precisely because it was something major. So major that the Jewish scriptures just had to have foretold it.

The problem here is that Mark is constructed by OT paralleling in three important ways, and Ben's objections only address one of those ways. First, OT paralleling is the backbone framework of the story -- the use of the Elijah-Elisha tale as the framework for the story from Mk 1-14. Second, the use of particular sequences from various OT books as intermediate level frames for specific pericopes for the story -- the way Esther underlies the John the Baptist , or Samuel underlies Mark 14, or Daniel 6 underlies the crucifixion. Third, the creation of specific verses through citation and reworking of the OT. The term "OT paralleling" hides a robust use of the OT at every level in Mark.

The first way is of less interest to me at this point than the others, not least because it would be no great trick to fill in the bare framework either with historical data, received tradition, or sheer invention, or some combination of all three. In fact, truth be known, I do not tend to put much stock in the overall structure of Mark myself (Galilee to Judea to Jerusalem), but for external reasons as much as anything.

The other two ways I have fleshed out in Luke 21.20-24 for your entertainment.

On its face Mark had a source for the tale.

On its face any historian writing about the ill-fated German invasion of Russia in winter under Hitler has a source for the tale in the ill-fated French invasion of Russia in winter under Napolean.

I was simply inviting [Ben], like I do all historicists, to demonstrate that there is history in Mark.

Invitation declined… at least for now. Rick Sumner accurately summarized my purpose here. The criterion from OT parallelism is what is on the block. Not historicity overall.

If your point is that if Mark turns out not to contain history at all then at least we know of some good sources for the story, that is one thing. If your point, on the other hand, is that Mark contains no history because we know of some good parallels for the story, that is what I am arguing against.

Many thanks for the stimulating exchange. I am a very frequent visitor to your weblog (http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com).

Ben.

[TedM]

In your opinion, is the bodily resurrection of Jesus a historical truth? Do you believe that it matters what world views people have? If so, which ones to you think are the best world views?

Regarding historical truths, is your interest mainly limited to historical truths regarding claims made in religious books, and specifically in the Bible? Do you care very much whether or not Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River or whehter or not Christopher Colubus discovered America?

I much more curious in what the history of Christianity, and don't think my world view is an issue here.

My agenda is to help destroy fundamentalist Christianity because fundamentalist Christians frequently attempt to legistlate religion, for example their attempts to prohibit physician assisted suicide and same sex marriage. I don't care what people believe, but I care a lot what they do. I believe in live and let live, but the majority of fundamentalist Christians do not even though they claim that they do.

Best to you,

ted

[Amaleq13]

I guess my argument in the end primarily comes down to silence of anyone explicity saying these are stories or were believed to be stories at some point before they were believed to be references to an actual man.

I see Believers make this same mistaken assumption all the time and it is crucial to understanding the mythicist argument that you abandon it because it simply makes no sense. They were NEVER considered to be "just stories" by anyone with faith in the risen Christ. They were ALWAYS considered to be messages of The Truth by the faithful. The only people who considered them to be "just stories" were non-believers like Celsus.

And further, my own semi-conviction about it is based on a 'sense' from reading of the gospels and Acts of some amount of historical truth perhaps more than my ability to display it.

Given how thoroughly inundated our culture is with the notion that the Gospels and Acts offer history, that is not surprising.

To me, either the author(s) really didn't believe it was the Truth, or they did believe it and it came from actual events.

I think you are imposing 21st century sensibilities on 1st century minds.

If we have references by Ignatious to a historical Jesus around 100AD and Mark wasn't written until 90AD, where is the gap?

I don't know that we can trust what is attributed to Ignatius as having actually been written by him but I also don't think the author of Mark created his story in a vacuum. If there had been a historical figure, however, I would certainly expect some of the fragments of references to details (eg naming the mother) attributed to Ignatius to be found in Paul.

The gap is between c.70CE and c.150CE.

And, if Mark wrote around 60-70AD, where is the evidence that any of the Paul converts and others had a problem with his blatant contrasting representation of Christ from any they had been taught, as would have been expected because of the time period Mark put Jesus in?

What blatant contrast do you find between the expressed theologies of Mark and Paul?

To me any way you slice it there would have been tremendous dissention in the Christian community over this very basic issue, yet we don't see it.

I Don shares this view but I think it is based on a flawed conception of the faith of the earliest Christians. I don't think these stories would have mattered one bit to them because they would still lead people to have faith in the risen Christ and THAT was all that was important. I think this holds true whether the original Christ was entirely spiritual as Doherty suggests or if there was virtually nothing known about the historicl figure. That Paul felt free to completely ignore his life clearly indicates it was irrelevant to his faith. As long as a given story lead a person to have faith in the salvific power of the death/resurrection of Christ, the historical reliability of the details would have been considered irrelevant even if they had such a notion.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I much more curious in what the history of Christianity, and don't think my world view is an issue here.

What is your definition of history? Fundamentalist Christians consider the bodily resurrection of Jesus to be a historical event. They make no distinction between the proper means of authenticating ordinary historical claims and authenticating claims of the supernatural. Do you?

Do you only want to know what people believed back then, or do you also want to know what actually happened back then?

Are you only interested in Christian history? How about the history of other religions? Do you visit Muslim web sites? There are over one billion Muslims, and Islam is growing faster than Christianity is.

Do you have children, or nephews and neices? If so, do you ever discuss their world views with them?

[TedM]

What is your definition of history? Fundamentalist Christians consider the bodily resurrection of Jesus to a historical event. They make no distinction between the proper means of authenticating ordinary historical claims and authenticating claims of the supernatural. Do you?

I don't want this thread to focus on me so let's let it suffice for me to say I am pretty skeptical of any claims for the supernatural, ok?

[Johnny Skeptic]

I don't want this thread to focus on me so let's let it suffice for me to say I am pretty skeptical of any claims for the supernatural, ok?

Excellent. Now I finally know where you stand. You are skeptical of claims of miracles. That is a good thing. If you are a deist type of skeptic, that is fine with me. It seems to me that you are simply a religious history buff and nothing more, and that for some reason you have chosen to specialize in the history of Christianity. If such is the case, then I will no longer reply to any of your posts. Everyone but you in this forum considers the choice of a world view to be very important and are trying to convince people to either accept or reject Christianity.

[TedM]

They were ALWAYS considered to be messages of The Truth by the faithful. The only people who considered them to be "just stories" were non-believers like Celsus.

Yet don't you consider the authors to be intentionally lying when they insist they got information from eyewitnesses?

I don't know that we can trust what is attributed to Ignatius as having actually been written by him but I also don't think the author of Mark created his story in a vacuum. If there had been a historical figure, however, I would certainly expect some of the fragments of references to details (eg naming the mother) attributed to Ignatius to be found in Paul.

I think in the end the "silences of Paul" make the strongest case for the mythicist position, moreso than the appeals to Mark as fiction or influence of Greek myths.. Yet, I think we have to be very careful when determining what 'silences' are to be unexpected.


The gap is between c.70CE and c.150CE.

It is a big gap.



What blatant contrast do you find between the expressed theologies of Mark and Paul?

That Jesus was a man on this earth with a powerful ministry of teaching and miracles.


I don't think these stories would have mattered one bit to them because they would still lead people to have faith in the risen Christ and THAT was all that was important...As long as a given story lead a person to have faith in the salvific power of the death/resurrection of Christ, the historical reliability of the details would have been considered irrelevant even if they had such a notion.

I think the amount of ink given to the dissentions we do hear about such as whether Gentiles should be circumcized or not--that's what Galations is all about--, and later the gnostic issue, is evidence that every little point of disagreement was argued and debated at length. This is the nature of the faith as represented from the earliest days. Christianity was seen as worthy of persecution and dissention from without, and dissention from within. I think the idea of the gospels as being stories of a fictional Jesus vs a real one would have made these other arguments pale in comparison.


That Paul felt free to completely ignore his life clearly indicates it was irrelevant to his faith.

He focused at length on the part of his life he thought made the most difference--crucifixion and death and resurrection. But, let's not get into that one again :)

[Peter Kirby]

Everyone but you in this forum considers the choice of a world view to be very important and are trying to convince people to either accept or reject Christianity.
Not true. Most of the time in this forum, and all of it in recent memory, I have not tried to convince people either to accept or to reject Christianity.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Rick Sumner]

Not true. Most of the time in this forum, and all of it in recent memory, I have not tried to convince people either to accept or to reject Christianity.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Likewise. Ultimately whether or not someone is Christian is of little relevance to me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

[Johnny Skeptic]

Not true. Most of the time in this forum, and all of it in recent memory, I have not tried to convince people either to accept or to reject Christianity.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Well, there are 39 articles by you and about you here at the Secular Web where you dispute Christiantiy, so for some reason at this forum you have abandoned your agenda of disputing Christianity. Why is that?

I should have said that the vast majority of people at the IIDB and the Theology Web argue for or against Christianity. That is the purpose of debate forums, is it not?

[Peter Kirby]

Well, there are 39 articles by you and about you here at the Secular Web where you dispute Christiantiy,

I'm aware of only two of my publications on the Secular Web, "Naturalistic Inquiry" and "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated." What are the other thirty-seven?

so for some reason at this forum you have abandoned your agenda of disputing Christianity. Why is that?

The longer I've been an atheist, the less evangelistic I've been about it.

I should have said that the vast majority of people at the IIDB and the Theology Web argue for or against Christianity. That is the purpose of debate forums, is it not?

I'm genuinely interested in the subject matter of Biblical Criticism & History, and not just as a means to an (atheistic) apologetic end.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

[Amaleq13]

Yet don't you consider the authors to be intentionally lying when they insist they got information from eyewitnesses?

I don't think that is an accurate interpretation of what Luke's author actually claims. I think the author is really only claiming to have obtained information, probably not directly (ie secondhand at best) from those who first witnessed the risen Christ. I do not think you can assert, based on the statement given that the author is claiming to have interviewed some of the people who are depicted in the story.

It is a big gap.

Annoyingly so, IMO. Almost as annoying as the way Paul chooses to express his beliefs.

That Jesus was a man on this earth with a powerful ministry of teaching and miracles.

I don't see either as central to Mark's theology.

I think the amount of ink given to the dissentions we do hear about such as whether Gentiles should be circumcized or not--that's what Galations is all about--, and later the gnostic issue, is evidence that every little point of disagreement was argued and debated at length.

Yes but I see no reason for dissension with regard to whether the details of the life of Jesus were literally true or even if there was any such life at all. The "mythicists" would have considered any such assertion irrelevant given faith in a risen Christ. Since the "mythicists" would have no reason to force the issue, I don't see why "historicists" would consider them heretical. IOW, there is no reason to think "mythicist" Christians felt the location or even time of the crucifixion to be important. Both would assert that Christ suffered and died. Both would assert that Christ was raised from the dead. If somebody wanted to claim it happened "here" and "then", why should the "mythicists" care? If somebody preached the same core belief in a risen Christ, why should a "historicist" care if they didn't also tell the Gospel story?

I think the idea of the gospels as being stories of a fictional Jesus vs a real one would have made these other arguments pale in comparison.

I think you are still misunderstanding how the alleged mythicists would consider the stories. The Jesus in those stories was real or true in the sense of a Higher Truth.

As far as considering these stories to be "history" in a modern sense, I think the Christian responses where they are compared to Greek stories about gods is important. They don't say, ours describe how things really happened while yours are just stories. They say our are really no different from yours. I don't think that should be understood to mean anything like our concept of "historical" or "non-hi