"King" Herod and the reliability of Mark [Archive I]

spin

October 26, 2006, 11:52 PM

Even if so, I don't think it the evidence is strong enough to say with any conviction what you said about Mark: "One must assume that the writer was confused and the reference is untrustworthy."
Further signs of the Marcan confusion are that the writer believed that the Herod involved was a king (GMt had to correct that) and that the girl who danced was Herod's daughter (according to W&H, thn yugatron autou herodiadon, "his daughter Herodias", while the Byz trad: thn yugatron authn thn herodiadon, preserving the now unnecessary autos, while correcting the information; Mt 14:6 goes for the clearer thn yugatron thn herodiadon, "the daughter of Herodias".)

Remembering that GLk doesn't contain the dance story, we may be able to see the evolution of the passage from the adaptation of a historical note referring to the death of John as a passing comment in the Jesus narrative with either the writer or his source providing the erroneous title of king; this is placed in a gospel context well before the death of Jesus; then the brief comment gets extended on the arrival of the sweet dance story. Mk is apparently under the misapprehension that this girl is the daughter of both this "king" Herod and the woman who was currently married to Herod, ie Herodias. Of course the girl doesn't choose possessions for her reward, but something that was of no value to her, despite the offer of up to half of "king" Herod's "kingdom". By today's standards the story has been cobbled together with a fishhook -- it is so messy. (The Matthean rewrite tidies the story up a lot.)

If we had stronger evidence than just the Josephus passage which can certainly be read differently then we can more reasonably make such an assumption. Without it, it is IMO not worthy of such an assumption, and I think we would have to rely on other evidence to be able to conclude when the book of Mark might have been written.
I think that there are quite a few problems with the material -- the Josephus material being only one -- that should make us suspicious of the value of the Marcan narrative. The mess over this pericope is further evidence that GMk was written well out of the context it is talking about. I've argued in the past for the text having been written in a Latin context. The geographical dislocations also help to place the writer out of the context. Would you really want to argue that GMk can be used as a historically reliable witness for anything?

(I've gone on in several posts about not knowing where or when these texts were written and this is for the reason that if a witness cannot be placed at the scene of the crime they describe, their statements are usually taken as not having any weight.)

spin

TedM

October 27, 2006, 03:26 PM

Further signs of the Marcan confusion are that the writer believed that the Herod involved was a king (GMt had to correct that) and that the girl who danced was Herod's daughter

I agree that further signs are helpful for making a case. However, I wonder how unusual either of these things you label 'confusion' would have been to someone during that day? Was Herod never called a 'king' by others, and is it really all that odd to refer to his wife's daughter as his own daughter? I personally don't know that answer, but it seems that these points MAY not be very strong evidence of much either, as they both MAY fall under the category of 'overly nitpicky'.

I think that there are quite a few problems with the material -- the Josephus material being only one -- that should make us suspicious of the value of the Marcan narrative.

To what end, though? What do we conclude if Mark was not literally accurate about a number of things? That he entirely made up everything entirely? That he made up some things? That he had a bad memory? That it probably wasn't written as a particular point in time? etc..

ted

spin

October 27, 2006, 09:43 PM

I agree that further signs are helpful for making a case. However, I wonder how unusual either of these things you label 'confusion' would have been to someone during that day? Was Herod never called a 'king' by others, and is it really all that odd to refer to his wife's daughter as his own daughter? I personally don't know that answer, but it seems that these points MAY not be very strong evidence of much either, as they both MAY fall under the category of 'overly nitpicky'.
Mt shows that these things are not 'overly nitpicky' by correcting them.

What do we conclude if Mark was not literally accurate about a number of things? That he entirely made up everything entirely? That he made up some things? That he had a bad memory? That it probably wasn't written as a particular point in time? etc..
That one cannot make any claims for any of the substantive content of the gospel, as the writer didn't evince enough signs that he knew the subject matter he was dealing with enough to get even simple local knowledge right. In short, you can't separate the bs in Mk from the non-bs. So how do you know what's tenable and what's not? Plain answer: you can't.

spin

TedM

October 28, 2006, 01:23 AM

Mt shows that these things are not 'overly nitpicky' by correcting them.

Sorry. That doesn't work because one could simply conclude that Matthew was being as overly nitpicky about the issues as you are. What must be done is show whether the fact that Herod was incorrectly referred to as 'king' and his stepdaughter as his 'daughter' is anything other than nitpicky. What meaning should really be given to such inaccuracies?

That one cannot make any claims for any of the substantive content of the gospel, as the writer didn't evince enough signs that he knew the subject matter he was dealing with enough to get even simple local knowledge right. In short, you can't separate the bs in Mk from the non-bs. So how do you know what's tenable and what's not? Plain answer: you can't.

I think it requires a careful study of each of the items that are being labeled inaccurate to determine whether it is anything truly substantive to whatever position one is taking. Even if Mark has 50 minor inaccuracies, they may be rather unimportant to the value of the substantive content, depending on their specifics....And, I wonder, if Mark had zero minor inaccuracies, would that really bolster it's position as an accurate historical document? Many would say 'no' simply because the 'substantive content' is of a supernatural nature. So to them it really doesn't even matter.

ted

spin

October 28, 2006, 05:09 AM

Sorry. That doesn't work because one could simply conclude that Matthew was being as overly nitpicky about the issues as you are. What must be done is show whether the fact that Herod was incorrectly referred to as 'king' and his stepdaughter as his 'daughter' is anything other than nitpicky. What meaning should really be given to such inaccuracies?
All the other texts which mention this Herod (Mt, Lk, Ac, Josephus), clarify that he was a tetrarch. I guess they were all being nitpicky. Let's face it: Mk is simply, grossly wrong.

I think it requires a careful study of each of the items that are being labeled inaccurate to determine whether it is anything truly substantive to whatever position one is taking. Even if Mark has 50 minor inaccuracies, they may be rather unimportant to the value of the substantive content, depending on their specifics....And, I wonder, if Mark had zero minor inaccuracies, would that really bolster it's position as an accurate historical document? Many would say 'no' simply because the 'substantive content' is of a supernatural nature. So to them it really doesn't even matter.
What I think is necessary is witness vetting. We have with Mk a Latin background to the writing (including a Latin expression translated literally into Greek and therefore not very meaningful in Greek, unless you knew the Latin). There are the geographic difficulties in the Marcan narrative which people have often noted in threads here. There are the factual errors which a local would be less likely to make, such as the reference to "king" Herod, and the reference to Herod's daughter corrected to Herodias's daughter in the Byzantine tradition of Mk, which agrees with the Mt version. (Both Mt and a later Marcan scribe thought it was necessary to correct Mk regarding whose daughter she was.)

These different problems, linguistic, geographical and historical, point to an origin of the text which was dislocated from the narrative's context. This suggests an untrustworthy witness. If the text was not written in the historical context, we cannot show that the writer can know what they are talking about. Tests of plausibility are worthless if someone is attempting to write a plausible account. This is especially true when you cannot place the witness on the spot at the time.

spin

TedM

October 28, 2006, 11:12 AM

All the other texts which mention this Herod (Mt, Lk, Ac, Josephus), clarify that he was a tetrarch. I guess they were all being nitpicky. Let's face it: Mk is simply, grossly wrong.

Maybe they clarify it, but they also ALL refer to him as 'king'--at least the version NASD I am looking at. And they DON'T clarify it in each place that he is mentioned to have been 'king'. To say that Mark is simply, grossly wrong about this defies common sense. Here's the quote I found in Josephus " He was one of the stock of the high priests (4) and had been of old a particular friend of Herod; and when he was first made king, he conferred that dignity upon him, and now put him out of it again,". Perhaps that is the wrong Herod--I didn't take the time to figure that out, but I'm not sure that would matter anyway..

What I think is necessary is witness vetting. We have with Mk a Latin background to the writing (including a Latin expression translated literally into Greek and therefore not very meaningful in Greek, unless you knew the Latin). There are the geographic difficulties in the Marcan narrative which people have often noted in threads here. There are the factual errors which a local would be less likely to make, such as the reference to "king" Herod, and the reference to Herod's daughter corrected to Herodias's daughter in the Byzantine tradition of Mk, which agrees with the Mt version. (Both Mt and a later Marcan scribe thought it was necessary to correct Mk regarding whose daughter she was.)

Since you haven't demonstrated that locals would NEVER use such language, I don't think we can on these items alone conclude that Mark wasn't local. Therefore, OTHER items--perhaps having to do with geography and customs that anyone local surely would have known--would be necessary to use to make this argument. I think the original question had to with the dating of GMark. It would seem that other clues would need to be examined than the 3 specific ones you have mentioned here in order to make an argument regarding when GMark was written..

These different problems, linguistic, geographical and historical, point to an origin of the text which was dislocated from the narrative's context. This suggests an untrustworthy witness. If the text was not written in the historical context, we cannot show that the writer can know what they are talking about. Tests of plausibility are worthless if someone is attempting to write a plausible account. This is especially true when you cannot place the witness on the spot at the time.

It of course doesn't mean he was right or wrong about everything, just that we can't demonstrate a pattern of exact accuracy about everything. Of course, the same can be said for traditional historical writings such as those of Josephus. As such it almost ALWAYS comes down to a judgement call: How much inaccuracy are you willing to accept before you decide it is historically untrustworthy?

Another, related question: If it can be shown that out of the verifiable statements by Mark, 50% are accurate, does this have any bearing on one's judgement as to the percentage of UNverifiable statements which are accurate?

ted

spin

October 28, 2006, 08:13 PM

Maybe they clarify it, but they also ALL refer to him as 'king'--at least the version NASD I am looking at. And they DON'T clarify it in each place that he is mentioned to have been 'king'. To say that Mark is simply, grossly wrong about this defies common sense.
"[D]efies common sense"? :rolleyes:

Mk is the source for Mt's version, yet Mt introduces Herod the tetrarch correctly (so does Lk), the single reference to the king which follows is easily attributable to a simple scribal error of copying what was seen rather than thinking about correcting. Mk uses "king" many times.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't argue that either the writers of Mt or Lk were working in Judea.

Here's the quote I found in Josephus " He was one of the stock of the high priests (4) and had been of old a particular friend of Herod; and when he was first made king, he conferred that dignity upon him, and now put him out of it again,". Perhaps that is the wrong Herod--I didn't take the time to figure that out, but I'm not sure that would matter anyway..
If you had supplied the exact reference when you supplied the exact quote I would have been able to help you more definitely, but from what you have quoted, Herod Antipas was not of the stock of high priests, so it apparently doesn't refer to him. Aristobulus was and his children, including Agrippa, were.

Since you haven't demonstrated that locals would NEVER use such language,
I guess you're right. We've got no certain examples of what the locals wrote, except perhaps Josephus who appears to have only called him a tetrarch.

I don't think we can on these items alone conclude that Mark wasn't local.
No? They are indications that the writer shows questionable knowledge of local conditions. Then the linguistic evidence is quite impressive. For example, why is the temporary headquarters of the "governor" called a praitwrion (the governor's palace was after all in Caesarea)? Why do coins bear Roman names or worse, Caesar's head, when the coins of Judea were prutahs and shekels and representations of people were a no-no? There are many more such signs of a Latin context.

Therefore, OTHER items--perhaps having to do with geography and customs that anyone local surely would have known--would be necessary to use to make this argument. I think the original question had to with the dating of GMark.
The original question was not generally singular in my posts. Perhaps you caught a single "when", but I usually ask when the text was written, where, who by, who for and what was the literary tradition context. The questions of historical accuracy you are responding to are dealing with location which show some evidence to doubt the unsubstantiated claim by later commentators that Mk was based on local information.

It would seem that other clues would need to be examined than the 3 specific ones you have mentioned here in order to make an argument regarding when GMark was written..
Given the evidence I have put forward, can you contextualise the gospel so that it explains most of these manifestations?

It of course doesn't mean he was right or wrong about everything, just that we can't demonstrate a pattern of exact accuracy about everything. Of course, the same can be said for traditional historical writings such as those of Josephus. As such it almost ALWAYS comes down to a judgement call: How much inaccuracy are you willing to accept before you decide it is historically untrustworthy?

Another, related question: If it can be shown that out of the verifiable statements by Mark, 50% are accurate, does this have any bearing on one's judgement as to the percentage of UNverifiable statements which are accurate?
Again, we are not dealing with a binary taxonomy. We don't just have verifiable and unverifiable. We also have erroneous, eg "king Herod" for Antipas.

Given the number of problems I've indicated with the reliability of the text, the burden is placed on you to discern what actually is factual.

I wonder if you think it's not sufficient to give you trust in the narrative of the Satyricon that it mentions real places such as Naples and Croton, that people in the book used Tyrian purple or imported Syrian plums, that the writer correctly knew historical events such as the death of Crassus in Parthia or that of Pompey in Africa or Caesar's defeat of the Gauls. Would you argue that Laenas or Giton were probably real? I would hope not. It is the substantive evidence for those central figures that we have to use, isn't it?

I have merely further pointed out that there are also problems with the text of Mk, which point to a lack of local knowledge of Judea, showing the confusion of the writer with regard to the local conditions and suggesting that the writer did not write in Judea but Rome.

spin

TedM

October 28, 2006, 08:57 PM

Thanks for the clarifications, spin.

The original question was not generally singular in my posts. Perhaps you caught a single "when", but I usually ask when the text was written, where, who by, who for and what was the literary tradition context.

I was zooming in on just a subset. It well may be that the other data presents a very compelling case for non-local authorship. As I see it, the subset of examples you provided may not, though I agree that Mark was not accurate as Josephus or Matthew or Luke when describing Herod. This could suggest either ignorance or carelessness. Of course, if Ch 6 is an interpolation as some suggest, it gets Mark off the hook for that one!

thanks and take care,
ted

spin

October 28, 2006, 10:45 PM

Of course, if Ch 6 is an interpolation as some suggest, it gets Mark off the hook for that one!
So a hypothetical interpolation crept in before Mt got hold of Mk?!

ETA: Another error in the same passage is that the writer calls Herodias's previous husband Philip the brother of this "King" Herod, yet this was certainly not the case. While Herod Antipas had a brother Philip, Herodias's Philip was from another branch of the family. This is an error packed passage, isn't it?

thanks and take care,
:wave:

spin

yalla

October 29, 2006, 02:22 AM

What do we conclude if Mark was not literally accurate about a number of things? That he entirely made up everything entirely? That he made up some things? That he had a bad memory? That it probably wasn't written as a particular point in time? etc..

ted

This little episode of Herod and the dancing daughter, "Mark" 6.14ff, is rife with errors that impinge overwhelmingly on its credibility.

V14 has the incorrect title as pointed out above.
v17 has the incorrect brother as pointed out above
v18 gives the wrong reason for J the B's imprisonment [if one accepts Josephus' account], and "Mark's" reason could not, according to D. Nineham [p.174 of "St. Mark" Pelican NT], support the implied grounds of incest for John's objection. So Joe is well ahead on points here.
v22 is described by D. Nineham as unlikely in that a princess dancing in front of a group of men at a banquet was not likely to be proper ettiquette for such.
"What is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of my kingdom".
That's actually the words of the king in Esther 5.3, just about repeated verbatim by the author of "Mark" and showing the source of some of his errors. The Esther story, itself an example of a common motif, is clearly inspirational to ''Mark'''s story.
v23 He [Herod the tetrarch] actually doesn't have a kingdom to give 1/2 of away and the Romans would probably have something to say on the issue.

[v26 is interesting cos mark Goodacre uses it as part explanation of the element of "fatigue'' as the author of "Matthew" tries to change the thrust of the story [showing that he doubted its absolute integrity and felt free to alter it for his purposes] but unwittingly reverts back to ''Mark"'s original.]

v27 "immmediately" .... yet Josephus has John a long way away in the fortress.

As a friend of mine says "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
"Mark" didn't.
cheers
yalla

TedM

October 29, 2006, 11:31 AM

v18 gives the wrong reason for J the B's imprisonment [if one accepts Josephus' account], and "Mark's" reason could not, according to D. Nineham [p.174 of "St. Mark" Pelican NT], support the implied grounds of incest for John's objection. So Joe is well ahead on points here.

What is incompatible about the reason between Josephus and Mark? Given the incestuous situation it seems very reasonable that JTB--who preached righteousness would have been critical of it.

v22 is described by D. Nineham as unlikely in that a princess dancing in front of a group of men at a banquet was not likely to be proper ettiquette for such.

Why? Isn't this what happened in Esther? Don't men in high places encourage such things?

"What is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of my kingdom".
That's actually the words of the king in Esther 5.3, just about repeated verbatim by the author of "Mark" and showing the source of some of his errors. The Esther story, itself an example of a common motif, is clearly inspirational to ''Mark'''s story.

It could have inspired Mark entirely, or it could have inspired folklore which Mark repeated, or it could have inspired Herodias and/or Herod too.

v23 He [Herod the tetrarch] actually doesn't have a kingdom to give 1/2 of away and the Romans would probably have something to say on the issue.

Yes, this may have gotten botched or exagerrated in the retelling of the events. Or, Herod could have said it anyway, in a drunken state during the party.

v27 "immmediately" .... yet Josephus has John a long way away in the fortress.

This isn't a problem. It doesn't say the soldiers immediately came in with JTB's head--just that they immediately left to get it.

It seems to me that the general story could be based on truth and is compatible with Josephus' story, though in the retelling some specifics were inaccurate.

ted

Vorkosigan

October 29, 2006, 11:54 PM

v22 is described by D. Nineham as unlikely in that a princess dancing in front of a group of men at a banquet was not likely to be proper ettiquette for such.
"What is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of my kingdom".
That's actually the words of the king in Esther 5.3, just about repeated verbatim by the author of "Mark" and showing the source of some of his errors. The Esther story, itself an example of a common motif, is clearly inspirational to ''Mark'''s story.
v23 He [Herod the tetrarch] actually doesn't have a kingdom to give 1/2 of away and the Romans would probably have something to say on the issue.

There are many more such links between that tale and the Esther tale. I laid them out on my website:

Vashti, wife of the Persian King, is granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar Herodias, wife of Herod, is granddaughter of Herod the Great

Vashti is commanded to appear before the Court wearing her crown (seen by later Jews as wearing only the crown). In Talmud Megillah 12B she is to appear only wearing royal crown
(Herodias' daughter dances lasciviously before Herod)

Esther marries the King of Persians, displacing Vashti
Herod has taken his brother's wife as his own, setting aside his own wife

Haman suggests Vashti be killed (Midrash)
(Herodias suggests John be killed)

Vashti's head is brought before the King on a platter (Midrash)
(John's head is brought before Herod on a platter)

Esther wants to stop Haman from destroying the Jews
Herodias wants John dead for criticizing her marriage

The enemy of Esther, Haman, is the king's favorite.
Herodias' enemy, John, is thought to be a "righteous and holy man" by Herod, who "kept him safe" and "heard him gladly." [Vork:Frickin' absurd!]

Haman goes home to get the advice of Zeresh his wife and his friends (twice) (Herodias' daughter asks her mother what to ask for.)

Esther and the King are at a banquet arranged by her for herself and Haman Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee.

"And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre."
"For when Herodias' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests"

"And the king said to Esther' Whatever thy petition, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy request," the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it."
"...even to the half of the kingdom, it shall be performed.' 23: And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom."

I consider this section to be a later interpolation. The original story probably contrasted the filial behavior of JBap's disciples in following JBap with the weakness and betrayal of Jesus' disciples later in Mark. But that is speculation on my part, there is no way to deduce what the original tale was. The elaborations of the Vashti tale in the Midrash are all known from late sources and it is impossible to tell what was known to AMark, nevertheless, it seems a safe assumption that the bringing in of John and Vashti's head on a platter is a unique detail too unique to have independently evolved.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

October 29, 2006, 11:55 PM

I should add that the detail of Herod keeping JOhn safe is probably meant to contrast to Pilate's behavior with Jesus, though how I am not yet sure.

Vorkosigan

TedM

October 30, 2006, 01:28 AM

There are many more such links between that tale and the Esther tale. I laid them out on my website:....nevertheless, it seems a safe assumption that the bringing in of John and Vashti's head on a platter is a unique detail too unique to have independently evolved.

Hi Vork. I don't care to rehash my responses to each of the items you mention which in many cases seem to me to not indicate a reliance/inspiration. I do think the "head on a platter" may well have been influenced by the Esther story due to the level of detail combined with other similarities, but that doesn't require fictionalizing by the writer, since the story of Esther could well have been known to Herodias herself, and thus a fine choice for treatment of the one who criticized her slutty behavior.

ted

Vorkosigan

October 30, 2006, 08:39 AM

Hi Vork. I don't care to rehash my responses to each of the items you mention which in many cases seem to me to not indicate a reliance/inspiration. I do think the "head on a platter" may well have been influenced by the Esther story due to the level of detail combined with other similarities, but that doesn't require fictionalizing by the writer, since the story of Esther could well have been known to Herodias herself, and thus a fine choice for treatment of the one who criticized her slutty behavior.

ted

Perhaps. But how did she get Herod to offer her half the kingdom? It's the combination of parallels plus citation of the source text that reveals literary invention.

Further, this creates a world in which Jesus is faithfully enacting the OT, Herodias is enacting Esther, the man with the dead girl has decided to enact Elijah.....apparently in Judea of Jesus' day, nobody acted out their own lives; they all lived out past tales.

Vorkosigan

TedM

October 30, 2006, 09:51 AM

Perhaps. But how did she get Herod to offer her half the kingdom? It's the combination of parallels plus citation of the source text that reveals literary invention.

She could have suggested it to Herod...Or Herod could have been drunk..or Herod may have offered something and in the retelling it got exagerrated..who knows? The problem with OT influence on the literary invention theory is that there is so much info one could use to see a connection to just about any event, yet there are many events that seem to have little if any OT influence--often it appears that the OT influence theory is primarily supported only if one sees GMark as some giant mysterious puzzle full of obtuse clues. Considering a culture that was OT obsessed, it is not unexpected that there would be some influences and that some would have very close details. For one to conclude that it is the invention of the writer and not actual events inspired/affected by OT influence requires telltale signs, such as chiasms or OT quotes about events no one would have witnessed (ie Mark's imagination had to fill in the blanks).
I've seen a few that might qualify, but would be interested in a top 10 from you.

ted

JoeWallack

October 30, 2006, 10:00 AM

Remembering that GLk doesn't contain the dance story, we may be able to see the evolution of the passage from the adaptation of a historical note referring to the death of John as a passing comment in the Jesus narrative with either the writer or his source providing the erroneous title of king; this is placed in a gospel context well before the death of Jesus; then the brief comment gets extended on the arrival of the sweet dance story. Mk is apparently under the misapprehension that this girl is the daughter of both this "king" Herod and the woman who was currently married to Herod, ie Herodias. Of course the girl doesn't choose possessions for her reward, but something that was of no value to her, despite the offer of up to half of "king" Herod's "kingdom". By today's standards the story has been cobbled together with a fishhook -- it is so messy. (The Matthean rewrite tidies the story up a lot.)

JW:
"Luke" coming after "Matthew" is even more interested in trying to harmonize "Mark" with recorded History. With Apologies to Stephen Carlson, "Luke" clearly dates Jesus' supposed birth to 6 CE utiliezing a famous Temporal landMark by Josephus, the Infamous Quirinius' census. Thus, when "Luke's" Jesus is around 30, the year is around 36 CE and now "Luke's" report concerning the supposed demise of one JTB, to use the words of the Famous
Richard Carrier, "dovetails nicely with Josephus' report that John could have been killed around then". (gotta love the use of "dovetail" here). Thereby "Luke" uses another Temporal landmark from Josephus, the Herod Tetrach defeat, to date the End Time of The Ministry.

And what does the Objective Reader learn from all this? That "Luke" considered Josephus real History that "Mark" needed to be reconciled with rather than Verse Vices.

Christians like TedM need to explain why they think "Mark" is accurate History when "Luke" didn't.

Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

October 30, 2006, 10:05 AM

You have the resilience of a christian in your defence of the veracity of Mk, TedM, though without ever showing any reason for believing said veracity. I've pointed out that
the Herod Antipas & John the Baptist story is full of holes, showing that Mk is historically untrustworthy;
the language of Mk contains enough Latin indications to think that the text was written not in a Palestinian context but a Latin one; and
the geographical problems point to a non-Palestinian writing context and the writer lacked local knowledge.
Let me add another major problem when trying to contemplate that Mk contains some historical core for its main propositions. The passion story evinces a gross artificiality in the number of items which are in threes:
3 disciples at Gethsemane; (14:32)
3 prayers and 3 returns by Jesus in Gethsemane; (33-42)
3 groups before the high priest, chief priests, elders and scribes; (14:53)
3 times the high priest speaks in the council; (14:60-64)
3 acts of violence against Jesus by those with the high priest, spitting at, blindfolding and striking him; (14:65)
3 denials by Peter; (14:66-72)
3 times Pilate speaks to the crowd; (15:9-14)
3 acts by soldiers in the courtyard, they struck him, spat on him and knelt before him; (15:19)
3 acts by the soldiers, they crucified him, divided his clothing and cast lots for them; (15:24)
3 people were crucified; (15:25-27)
3 rebukes, by passers-by, by the chief priests, and by those crucified; (15:29-32)
3 times were reported during the progress of the crucifixion; (15:25, 33a, 33b)
3 women watched from a distance(15:40)
All of these point to a literary creation for the telling rather than anything that actually happened.

Add to this the building of story through "prophecy" fulfilment, such as the dividing of clothes and the "eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani", or the one who loses the cape and runs away. (And I can add still others.)

What do you find left, besides wisdom teachings and the supernatural, eg the temptation and the transfiguration, and the miracles, what is there left in the glue that you could pin your hopes on as perhaps historical?

spin

TedM

October 30, 2006, 11:46 AM

Malachi151

October 30, 2006, 12:35 PM

TedM:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/temp/matthew_15.htm

And I should note that I have since learned of even more parallels between other OT texts and this one segment of the gospel story.

As I state in my presentation on the historicity of Jesus:

Prophesies or Plagiarism?

Isaiah 7:14 - Mistranslated inspiration for the virgin birth story.
Isaiah 9:1 - Inspiration for setting story in Galilee.
Isaiah 53 - Describes a servant of the Lord who heals people, but is rejected by his community, is “pierced for our transgressions”, and “will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.”
Zechariah 12:10- Quoted in John, “They shall look on him whom they have pierced”
Daniel 9:24-27 - Describes a savior who will be “cut off” and “the people of the prince” shall destroy “the city and temple” quoted in Matthew.
Hosea 11:1 - “out of Egypt I called my son”, Matthew has Mary and Joseph flee from Egypt before giving birth to Jesus.
Zechariah 9:9 - “Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.” - “... the King of Israel!’ And Jesus found a young ass and sat upon it; as it is written, ‘Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on an ass’s colt!’” - John 12:13.
Micah 5:2 - “O Bethlehem Ephrata, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel”.
Psalm 2 - "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Quoted in NT.
Psalm 16 - Referenced in NT for Jesus' triumph over death.
Psalm 22 - Inspiration for crucifixion scene in Synoptic gospels.
Psalm 34 - Referenced by in John showing that none of Jesus' bones were broken
Psalm 69 - Inspiration for drinking of vinegar during crucifixion scene
Psalm 110 - Referenced in Synoptics, “will rule the nations”

And this is really just a small list.

The reality is that pretty much every detail of the "life of Jesus" according to the gospels can be shown to have been lifted from the "Old Testament", other Hebrew scriptures not currently found in the Bible, and potentially from other texts which the writers of the gospels would have either had direct access to as texts in Greek, or at least they could have heard of because they are story elements that were known to have been present in that place and time.

By far, though, the biggest thing is the direct quotes and allusions to the "OT" texts.

So, let's look at the story of Jesus in relation to OT texts:

Mary and Joseph fled from Egypt? Based on OT.
Jesus born in Bethlehem? Based on OT.
Herod massacre of the innocents? Based on OT.
Jesus preached in Galilee? Based on OT.
Jesus was a healer who was rejected by his community but scarified himself to save the world? Based on OT.
Jesus rode into town on a ass while the people hailed him as king of the Jews? Based on OT.
Jesus was pierced and fluid came souring out of him? Based on OT.
Jesus' bones weren't broken, but the bones o the thieves were? Based on OT.
Jesus was given vinegar to drink on the cross? Based on OT.
Jesus comforts women at well and tells her things about her? Based on OT.
Jesus gives "Sermon on the Mount"? Based on OT.
Jesus throw merchants out of the temple? Based on OT.

etc., we can go on.

The only answers to all this are:

1) Jesus really did these things and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the OT.
2) The story of Jesus is crafted from OT texts.

The problem with #1 is that a) most of the parallels between the OT and the story of Jesus aren't even from OT prophecies, they are just from songs or parts of other stories. b) even if they were prophecies, the most reasonable explanation is still that the writers of the gospels simply used them as the basis for their story. c) we don't really have any info about Jesus that tells us something reasonable that doesn't seem to come from either the OT, other mythical constructs (such as the 12 apostles (12 signs of zodiac, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 Hebrew prophets)), or that isn't just outright fantastic, such as walking on water, raising the dead, etc.

Once you take away what is clearly pulled from the OT, what is based on other regional mythic motifs (12 apostles, etc.), and the fantastic stuff, there isn't anything left except: "He........ the......... a.......... is.......... when.........", etc.

TedM

October 30, 2006, 09:19 PM

The only answers to all this are:

1) Jesus really did these things and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the OT.
2) The story of Jesus is crafted from OT texts.

Jesus very well could have done SOME of those things to intentionally fulfill the OT...

Once you take away what is clearly pulled from the OT, what is based on other regional mythic motifs (12 apostles, etc.), and the fantastic stuff, there isn't anything left except: "He........ the......... a.......... is.......... when.........", etc.

I don't think that is anywhere near true unless you think it is appropriate to completely cross of entire stories such as blind man healings simply because they contain 'fantastic stuff' or because of one verse in the OT. I'm curious--what would you want to see in a story about a man who the writer considered to have been the Messiah, who had been a travelling preacher/healer with disciples, who was crucified after a few years--that isn't there? And what about all of those parables--where is the OT influence in them? It is entirely possible that there were a few similarities of a real Jesus to some verses considered to apply to the expected Messiah, and that fact did result in some additional stories made up from the OT, but that doesn't mean they all were.

ted

spin

October 30, 2006, 09:50 PM

Jesus very well could have done SOME of those things to intentionally fulfill the OT...
"SOME"? That's not good enough, is it TedM?

But let's get past the "could haves" and ask you once again for something substantive, to offset the non-historical elements in the gospel of Mark. If we have a writer who has a Latin background, who doesn't know the geography, who gets historical information plain wrong, who shows that the writing style is not historical, and who uses narrative elements that reflect Hebrew bible materials, we have an undateable non-local who shows no interest in writing historical information. Why do you try to save elements from the text as reflective of a figure acting in history? How do you choose which elements?

spin

TedM

October 30, 2006, 10:33 PM

"SOME"? That's not good enough, is it TedM?

But let's get past the "could haves" and ask you once again for something substantive, to offset the non-historical elements in the gospel of Mark.

Mark's Jesus has a lot in common with Paul's Jesus, and there is not strong evidence IMO--yes I am aware of Vork's arguments, that Mark knew what Paul had written about Jesus.

If we have a writer who has a Latin background, who doesn't know the geography, who gets historical information plain wrong, who shows that the writing style is not historical, and who uses narrative elements that reflect Hebrew bible materials, we have an undateable non-local who shows no interest in writing historical information.

All that means is that he wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean he was deliberately inventing anything. He may have just been careless. It is a big jump to go from careless to intentional fictionalizing.

Why do you try to save elements from the text as reflective of a figure acting in history?

Because to me the idea of Mark totally inventing the entire story is ludicrous. Vork believes it, but he also believes that GMark was the greatest piece of literature ever written. IF Mark was writing a 'play' as some have suggested, there is no clue within the material that he was doing so. It reads more to me like he was writing about a person he believed lived.

How do you choose which elements?

I don't know. Contemporary comparisons with Paul and the other gospels might be helpful but it is all subjective due to the inherent biases of the authors..

ted

spin

October 30, 2006, 11:34 PM

Mark's Jesus has a lot in common with Paul's Jesus, and there is not strong evidence IMO--yes I am aware of Vork's arguments, that Mark knew what Paul had written about Jesus.
It's logical, isn't it? Before you make your argument of separate witnesses here you have to demonstrate the relationship between Paul and Mk. I don't think you can, but I'd be happy to see you try.

All that means is that he wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean he was deliberately inventing anything. He may have just been careless.
Perhaps the writer of Goldilocks and the three bears "wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean [s/]he was deliberately inventing anything." Oh, bears don't speak or live in houses, but the writer "may have just been careless." I suppose that this will be taken as an inappropriate comparison because there is no historical window-dressing in the Goldilocks narrative, but is historical window-dressing an issue? If so, there's surely more such historical window-dressing in the Satyricon.

The Goldilocks narrative displays the same type of formalised structuring as the passion narrative regarding its discursive use of repetitive three items, though it is simpler and less manifest.

It is a big jump to go from careless to intentional fictionalizing.
I'll allow you to make the jump, if you like. I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative, while I show you all the elements that point against the trustworthiness of the source. Whatever Mk is, you need to show that it is.

Why do you try to save elements from the text as reflective of a figure acting in history?Because to me the idea of Mark totally inventing the entire story is ludicrous.
This doesn't really answer my question at all. I'm not interested in who may or may not have "invented" what. That's an ulterior step in the analysis of the problem. My question was about what makes you think that there are elements reflective of history.

Vork believes it, but he also believes that GMark was the greatest piece of literature ever written. IF Mark was writing a 'play' as some have suggested, there is no clue within the material that he was doing so. It reads more to me like he was writing about a person he believed lived.
What the writer of Mk believed is a matter of clairvoyance. This issue is not too difficult, TedM. Which elements of the text do you find reflective of a figure acting in history?

How do you choose which elements?I don't know. Contemporary comparisons with Paul and the other gospels might be helpful but it is all subjective due to the inherent biases of the authors..
So you just believe that it's just possible that some of the elements just might be reflective of history, but which elements you just don't know.

You haven't really given me any idea of why you think that any of the elements of Mk are reflective of a figure acting in history.

spin

TedM

October 31, 2006, 12:24 AM

It's logical, isn't it? Before you make your argument of separate witnesses here you have to demonstrate the relationship between Paul and Mk. I don't think you can, but I'd be happy to see you try.

Why do I have to demonstrate that? Paul doesn't mention Mark and Mark doesn't mention Paul, yet they both mention a number of similarities about this person Jesus.

Perhaps the writer of Goldilocks and the three bears "wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean [s/]he was deliberately inventing anything." Oh, bears don't speak or live in houses, but the writer "may have just been careless." I suppose that this will be taken as an inappropriate comparison because there is no historical window-dressing in the Goldilocks narrative, but is historical window-dressing an issue?

The writer of Goldilock had no need to clarify that he was writing fiction. The writer of Mark had a much greater need, since he was writing about a being that was highly venerated by at least SOME prior to his writing.

I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative.

How do you think that could be done?

My question was about what makes you think that there are elements reflective of history.

The lack of any good argument for entire fiction.

Which elements of the text do you find reflective of a figure acting in history?

I've already given you the fact of a number of similarities regarding Jesus found in Paul's writings. I also think the role of baptism in Christianity dovetails nicely with the JTB influence on Jesus. I think the early accounts in GJohn of Jesus' disciples initially including some former JTB disciples, and performing baptisms to be supportive. I think the unlikely indication of a mother and father and brothers and sisters of the Messiah--as well as their embarrassment of Jesus as supportive. I find the mention of James as a brother as supportive. I find the unusual closeness of the relationships and places of origins of the disciples to be supportive. I find the lack of witnesses of many of the miracles to be supportive. I find the placement of such a figure in a very recent historical timeframe to be very supportive. The early apparent universal acceptance of the crucifiction as fact is very supportive.. These are a few of the things..

ted

spin

October 31, 2006, 12:52 AM

Why do I have to demonstrate that? Paul doesn't mention Mark and Mark doesn't mention Paul, yet they both mention a number of similarities about this person Jesus.
Why do you only assume one possible relationship between the sources? You arbitrarily decide that otherwise one must mention the other? Did Mt mention Mk? This is really a really specious argument, TedM.

The writer of Goldilock had no need to clarify that he was writing fiction. The writer of Mark had a much greater need, since he was writing about a being that was highly venerated by at least SOME prior to his writing.
Still massively assumption laden. Not good.

I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative.How do you think that could be done?
Using historical methodology.

If the historical methodology that you use doesn't yield any historical content then perhaps that's indicative of something you should face.

My question was about what makes you think that there are elements reflective of history.The lack of any good argument for entire fiction.
Did Judith exist? Did Tobit exist? Did Ebion exist?

Your persistence in some modern notion of "entire fiction" merely says that your modern prerequisites were not dealt with in ancient times. I could have told you that earlier: don't project your desires onto the past.

Perhaps if you can tell what you consider is not fiction and why exactly the particular datum is historical, one might be able to deal with something substantive rather than you attempting to shift responsibility onto the non-substantive position.

I've already given you the fact of a number of similarities regarding Jesus found in Paul's writings.
But you still haven't said what the relationship with Paul was.

I also think the role of baptism in Christianity dovetails nicely with the JTB influence on Jesus.
What is your external source for this influence? Or are you just cherry picking?

I think the early accounts in GJohn of Jesus' disciples initially including some former JTB disciples, and performing baptisms to be supportive.
GJn clearly says that Jesus didn't baptise, which undermines any relationship with John.

I think the unlikely indication of a mother and father and brothers and sisters of the Messiah--as well as their embarrassment of Jesus as supportive.
Embarrassment is an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with history at all.

I find the mention of James as a brother as supportive.
Wot?

I find the unusual closeness of the relationships and places of origins of the disciples to be supportive.
??

I find the lack of witnesses of many of the miracles to be supportive.
"[L]ack"!

I find the placement of such a figure in a very recent historical timeframe to be very supportive.
I'm getting lost in the flow of non sequiturs.

The early apparent universal acceptance of the crucifiction as fact is very supportive.
It was a central peg of Paul's teaching, so if he is representative of the earliest thought on the subject it would only make sense that it was accepted early on.

I think you could make a similarly strong case for the historical nature of the Satyricon.

spin

TedM

October 31, 2006, 03:07 AM

Why do you only assume one possible relationship between the sources? You arbitrarily decide that otherwise one must mention the other? Did Mt mention Mk? This is really a really specious argument, TedM.

Why should I assume there is a relationship? How, is this any different than two works that are accepted as historically corroberative? Mt contains 90% of Mark, Mark contains a very small pctg of Paul, so I don't see the Mt-Mk argument as a very good example.

The writer of Goldilock had no need to clarify that he was writing fiction. The writer of Mark had a much greater need, since he was writing about a being that was highly venerated by at least SOME prior to his writing.

Still massively assumption laden. Not good.

Very reasonable assumptions, so why not good?

I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative.

How do you think that could be done?

Using historical methodology.

It seems to me that doing so (however that is done) can only be used to find historical inaccuracies, and that there are remaining parts that aren't disproven. Such as Jesus was a real person, or Jesus met JTB. If Jesus didn't really heal a blind man it doesn't mean he wasn't considered a healer. If God didn't really say anything during the baptism, that doesn't mean he wasn't baptized. The historical methodology can only go so far. It can't be used to prove anything beyond.

... might be able to deal with something substantive rather than you attempting to shift responsibility onto the non-substantive position.

I'm not trying to prove anything, so there is no responsibility on my side. Those that claim that the entire work is fiction even though they can only demonstrate that part of it is are going too far.

I also think the role of baptism in Christianity dovetails nicely with the JTB influence on Jesus.

What is your external source for this influence? Or are you just cherry picking?

Why do I need an external source to tell me that JTB baptism influenced early Christianity? I'm not trying to prove that. I'm saying that the second is supportive of the first.

I think the early accounts in GJohn of Jesus' disciples initially including some former JTB disciples, and performing baptisms to be supportive.

GJn clearly says that Jesus didn't baptise, which undermines any relationship with John.

I didn't claim Jesus had a relationship with John. I said that the account of his own disciples initially baptizing is supportive of an early JTB influence on Jesus. Why? Because they were imitating JTB's disciples early on--NOT baptizing in Jesus' name as they did later. It seems that the movement didn't yet have their own philosophy.

Embarrassment is an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with history at all.

If an author writes about something which can really be shown to be embarrassing to him, this betrays a historical event. We can't show that because we can't prove the author's intent. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was embarrasing. The counter arguments seem stretched to me.

I find the mention of James as a brother as supportive.

Wot?

Since Paul mentioned him (as well as other brothers), and the most reasonable interpretation is that of biological brothers. The 'special group' interpretation is more problematic, and comes across as wishful thinking by Jesus-mythers.

I find the unusual closeness of the relationships and places of origins of the disciples to be supportive.

??

It makes more sense to me that a fictional writing would not have so many brothers and friends as disciples of Jesus, because it spreads the support between a smaller group of differing backgrounds.

I find the lack of witnesses of many of the miracles to be supportive.

"[L]ack"!

Yes, because it makes more sense to me that a fictional writing would have the miracles be openly witnessed in the public places Mark mentions. Yet, many if not most are only witnessed by a few chosen disciples or no one else at all.

I find the placement of such a figure in a very recent historical timeframe to be very supportive.

I'm getting lost in the flow of non sequiturs.

Presenting the Messiah as a person who lived recently in history doesn't make sense to me if Mark didn't believe that person actually lived. I don't think a person would go to all that trouble for other reasons without making it clear that he didn't really believe what he was writing. And, if he DID believe he had lived, I don't think he would have gotten away with the timeframe had he not. To my knowledge we don't have any similar example throughout all of history of a mythical person considered to be divine or near-so being placed in such detailed historical settings so few years prior to the writing.

I think you could make a similarly strong case for the historical nature of the Satyricon.

I can't comment since I don't know anything about that.

You may want to limit your response as I don't intend on writing much more about this. Other things are more important to me these days.. Thanks,

spin

October 31, 2006, 07:18 AM

Why should I assume there is a relationship?
You tell me. You already assume a relationship for some reason. You are claiming that they are siblings or some other non-linear relationship.

You tried to argue that Paul and Mk were separate witness, by saying "Paul doesn't mention Mark and Mark doesn't mention Paul" to which I responded that they doesn't indicate anything for Mt doesn't mention Mk, but we know that Mt was dependent on Mk. You then tried to claim that these situations weren't analogous for some reason without communicating your idea:
How, is this any different than two works that are accepted as historically corroberative? Mt contains 90% of Mark, Mark contains a very small pctg of Paul, so I don't see the Mt-Mk argument as a very good example.
The point was you were trying to argue that because there is no acknowledgment of a connection there was no linear connection. You would say Mt doesn't acknowledge a connection with Mk so there's no connection, right?

I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative.
It seems to me that doing so (however that is done) can only be used to find historical inaccuracies, and that there are remaining parts that aren't disproven.
Historical methodologies can, depending on the evidence, say something happened or someone existed, say something may have happened or someone may have existed, or say that something didn't happen or someone didn't exist.
The first option is useful and so is the third, though it is more difficult.

Such as Jesus was a real person, or Jesus met JTB.
If you can't show that a figure existed, then you can't really do much with that figure in history, can you? There may be some dispute over the existence of John, but I think the independent witness of Josephus for him in circumstances which don't accord too easily with the gospel information helps me say he existed. We can't do the same for Jesus. You have no way of showing that Jesus was a real person, so your further interest in the figure of Jesus isn't a matter of history.

Why do I need an external source to tell me that JTB baptism influenced early Christianity? I'm not trying to prove that. I'm saying that the second is supportive of the first.
This notion of supportive is meaningless, it seems to me. Plausibility is not a sufficient condition in historical research. You seem to be doing literary criticism rather than showing any interest in history. You can apply lit. crit. to any novel or play and get similar results, can't you? If a text is plausible (here, read "supportive") according to your criteria, what does it mean, other than that it is plausible (supportive)?

That John had an influence on Jesus is at the moment a literary observation. Your idea that the Jesus "movement didn't yet have their own philosophy" is you giving coherence to the narrative. This could be called eisegesis.

Arguments that fall back on the silly embarrassment fudge can't get anywhere, because they aren't trying to do history, but appeal to a modern person's understanding of coherence. If a modern person did X, they would be embarrassed, well that tells me something about a modern person, little else.

I find the mention of James as a brother as supportive... Since Paul mentioned him
That's merely interpretation. What does "the lord's brother" mean? What does Ahijah mean? Perhaps the 500 brethren are also brothers of Jesus or something. But of course this logic is just more of the same narrative plausibility, which has nothing to do with history. There is no way you can claim to know the exact reference of obscure phrases in an ancient document, without having sufficient contextualization, so I don't think you can say what the "most reasonable interpretation" is.

I can't see how you can take this "supportive" argument of yours seriously. It says nothing at all other than you find it plausible. This inspires a rousing "uh-huh", and nothing more.

Presenting the Messiah as a person who lived recently in history doesn't make sense to me if Mark didn't believe that person actually lived.
But that tells you nothing about reality, perhaps only what the writer of Mk believed, if that. Besides, you've presented nothing to make one think that Mk was written about something in the recent past, given that you don't k now when Mk was written.

If Mark's "King" Herod was a confusion over Herod the Great, a possibility that you can't simply discount, then you open a big can of worms.

I don't think a person would go to all that trouble for other reasons without making it clear that he didn't really believe what he was writing. And, if he DID believe he had lived, I don't think he would have gotten away with the timeframe had he not. To my knowledge we don't have any similar example throughout all of history of a mythical person considered to be divine or near-so being placed in such detailed historical settings so few years prior to the writing.
I don't know when the Jesus tradition was started or in what form or about whom -- we just the literature. I should then point you to the existence or non-existence of Ebion, a person invented sometime before Tertullian, and who had developed various characteristics at the time of Tertullian but got more by the time of Epiphanius. He was supposed to have been the eponymous founder of the Ebionites. How do you separate the process that produced Ebion from the process which supplied Jesus?

spin

Malachi151

October 31, 2006, 07:28 AM

TedM

I'm not saying that there is a relationship between Paul and Mark or not, but Mark is a story of the life of Jesus, none of Paul's writings are such, they are letters to people about various ideas, thus they are two completely different things, whereas Mk, and Mt are both stories about the life of Jesus.

Also, just because Matthew copies from Mark doesn't mean that Mark had to have copied from Paul in order to have been influenced by Paul.

Can we conclude that Mark never read the works of Paul or heard of the teachings of Paul, and was thus never influenced by Paul?

No, we can't.

Can we say for sure that he had read Paul and was influence by him?

No, we can't.

JoeWallack

October 31, 2006, 10:02 AM

Yes, because it makes more sense to me that a fictional writing would have the miracles be openly witnessed in the public places Mark mentions. Yet, many if not most are only witnessed by a few chosen disciples or no one else at all.

JW:
I find your sense of what constitutes common sense regarding "Mark" reMarkable. Perhaps most Amazing is that you can claim any point that has "more sense to me" and "miracles" in the same thought.

Let's suppose, just for the Sake of Argumeddon, that the Impossible is Possible. You have correctly observed that per "Mark" the Lesser the Miracle by Jesus the More and more Outside the Witness. The Greater the supposed Miracle by Jesus the Less and more Inside the Witness until the greatest Miracle of all, the Resurrection, is observed by No one. Is this common sense Ted, that in "Mark's" Gospel, the Insiders who knew Jesus and received the best evidence wouldn't Believe and the Outsiders who didn't know Jesus and received the Worst evidence would Believe? The Early Editor of "Mark" didn't think so so he Forged an Ending showing the Insiders as Believing. The Later Editors of "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke", didn't believe so either and likewise Forged a similiar ending as well as rehabilitating the Insiders within the Narrative.

You have the Selective observation so far that Paul and "Mark" appear to agree on some things Jesus. What you have not properly considered is what was the likely Source of knowledge for them? Having Paul and "Mark" agree on something doesn't really tell us if their underlieing Source was Historical or Fictional. Understand Dear Reader?

As it happens here, Paul and "Mark" do agree on their Source but this agreement is Negatively defined, What their Source was not. "Mark" presents a Narrative showing The Disciples as not understanding Jesus and ultimately dropping out and not Witnessing Jesus. "Mark's" Implication is that the people who knew and witnessed Jesus, The Disciples, were not the Source of "Mark's" Narrative. Similarly, the Implication from Paul's writings is that his Source was not anyone who knew and Witnessed Jesus. Therefore, common sense tells us that Paul and "Mark" had a common Source for their Jesus, their Imaginations. This dovetails nicely with a Narrative that consists primarily of the Impossible. Remove the Impossible from "Mark" and you have the classic Episode of The Adam Family where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there's nothing left.

The Story of Jesus is like a JewSaw puzzle where we are missing all the middle peaces and only have the Borders of Impossible claims. If we assume that the Impossible is Impossible than I get the following scenario:

1) The Historical Jesus was a Possible Teacher and faith Healer.

2) The Historical witnesses, Peter and James, witnessed Possible Teaching and faith Healing and Evidenced this with Q.

3) Paul, who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.

4) "Mark", who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Malachi151

October 31, 2006, 10:53 AM

This also requires some understanding of the stories and religions of the time, as well as the motivation of Mark.

I would ask this of Ted.

Read Mark from beginning to end with this in mind: Consider that Mark was written after the destruction of Judea by the Roman army by a Jew living in Rome who, while being a Jew, thinks that the Jews in Judea are backwards and foolish and that they should get with the program and integrate with the Roman Empire and stop trying to be separate.

Come back and give us your impression.

Also, keep in mind that "secret knowledge" was a major theme in the religions of the Roman Empire during this time, many stories feature secretly revealed knowledge in them.

In fact, this is what "Mark" is doing.

The story written by Mark basically says this:

Judea has been destroyed and I am sorry to say but my Jewish people brought it on themselves.

The Judean Jews are ignorant fools. The destruction of Judea happened because they were fools and didn't heed the word of integration. Everything was revealed to them right before their eyes, but they still couldn't figure it out, they are the victims of their own ignorance.

Until now, no one has really understood the message of God, which is why *I* (the writer of the gospel of Mark) am revealing the truth to you now.

See the message of Jesus, see how clear it is? But look, none of the disciples of Jesus could figure it out, they were all too foolish. None of his disciples, not even Peter, that fool, understood the message of Jesus, which is why Judea has been destroyed, and why we must now abandon Judaism and the old ways for a new way of life.

----

That's my summary of what the author of Mark is saying, and as such it is impossible that any theoretical disciple could be a source for Mark, since Mark portrays all the disciples and all of the witnesses to Jesus as fools. According to Mark NO ONE that saw Jesus (except the Roman officer) really understood Jesus.

I would also venture to say that Mark was writing allegory here and didn't even have a pretense of writing history, he was using "Jesus" as a literary aid, to get his own personal message across. The message of Jesus in the gospel of Mark is the PERSONAL VIEW OF THE AUTHOR.

As I said, read Mark with this in mind and see what you think....

Amaleq13

October 31, 2006, 12:18 PM

I didn't claim Jesus had a relationship with John. I said that the account of his own disciples initially baptizing is supportive of an early JTB influence on Jesus. Why? Because they were imitating JTB's disciples early on--NOT baptizing in Jesus' name as they did later.

Are you assuming here that JtB was the only one baptizing?

If an author writes about something which can really be shown to be embarrassing to him, this betrays a historical event.

Given that embarrassment can truly be shown, it really only indicates it is something the author felt constrained to include in his story. That it was well known as an historical fact is only one possible reason for that feeling of constraint but it requires additional evidence/argument to be established as the reason.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was embarrasing.

What specific evidence of the author's embarrassment do you see? I see none. In fact, it seems to me that the author is embracing the notion that Jesus was doubted by his family and using it to further his veneration of Jesus.

TedM

October 31, 2006, 01:38 PM

JW:
I find your sense of what constitutes common sense regarding "Mark" reMarkable. Perhaps most Amazing is that you can claim any point that has "more sense to me" and "miracles" in the same thought.

Had I said "alleged miracles" my point would have been clearer.

The Story of Jesus is like a JewSaw puzzle where we are missing all the middle peaces and only have the Borders of Impossible claims. If we assume that the Impossible is Impossible than I get the following scenario:

1) The Historical Jesus was a Possible Teacher and faith Healer.

2) The Historical witnesses, Peter and James, witnessed Possible Teaching and faith Healing and Evidenced this with Q.

3) Paul, who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.

4) "Mark", who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.

This seems reasonable, though my point above about the alleged miracles is that the witnessed vs unwitnessed 'miracles' argues in favor IMO of the existence of some events that were publically witnessed and believed to have been miracles---the "Possible evidence" Mark didn't invent using his imagination. I put the things in common between Mark and Paul's Jesus in the same category.

Thanks to all of those who responded here..Lots of good comments have been made and things I would like to think about and study further..Someday perhaps. . For now I am going to have to bow out in order to keep my priorities in line.

ted

TedM

October 31, 2006, 01:46 PM

Are you assuming here that JtB was the only one baptizing?

He may not have been, but he is the only other person I know of who was doing it. It appears that he was quite popular with the people also. This only increases the odds that a person of religious bent such as Jesus would have been influenced by him.

Given that embarrassment can truly be shown, it really only indicates it is something the author felt constrained to include in his story. That it was well known as an historical fact is only one possible reason for that feeling of constraint but it requires additional evidence/argument to be established as the reason.

I agree. I suspect that historical truth is the most common reason for writing about an event as though it were history, that one feels constrained to include.

What specific evidence of the author's embarrassment do you see? I see none. In fact, it seems to me that the author is embracing the notion that Jesus was doubted by his family and using it to further his veneration of Jesus.

Good point. I am projecting under the assumption that Mark was a believer and that a believer would be embarrassed by that--thus would provide the 'reason' for such doubts that Mark did--prophet not honored in his own country/town.. IF Mark was a believer, I don't see how he could not find the rejection of his Savior by Jesus' own family as disturbing. It feeds into a persons natural doubts..

Ok, now I really am done. Malachi--interesting suggestion. Spin--not sure I really see the value of the historical methodology for things that it simply can't be applied to...It ultimately includes assumptions and subjectivity just as does my less-scientific arguments...Sorry. But thanks..

ted

spin

October 31, 2006, 08:48 PM

Spin--not sure I really see the value of the historical methodology for things that it simply can't be applied to...It ultimately includes assumptions and subjectivity just as does my less-scientific arguments.
Yes, history lets you talk meaningfully about the past. The rest is hype, but lots of people are into it.

spin

rlogan

November 1, 2006, 07:43 AM

Malachi151

November 1, 2006, 08:27 AM

I think that this sums things up:

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_intro.html#place

The Gospel of Mark has many sources, but pre-eminent among them is the Tanakh, what Christians have appropriated and called the "Old Testament." By some counts there are over 150 direct citations, allusions, and references to it in the Gospel of Mark. This does not begin to take into account the use of the story of Elijah and Elisha in 1 and 2 Kings as a key structural element that controls the Gospel up to Mark 14, nor the presence of other stories such as 2 Sam 15-17 or Daniel 6, as story frameworks. The Tanakh is present at every level of the Gospel, and its author was intimately familiar with that collection of texts. The use of the Old Testament (OT) has generated an enormous controversy among scholars. Does the writer of Mark use the OT to interpret the history of Jesus, or to create it? If the answer to either is "sometimes," when does he do which, and how do we know?

The writer's Old Testament was not a Hebrew one, however, but a Greek translation called the Septuagint (LXX), after the seventy Jewish elders who allegedly translated it in Egypt a couple of centuries prior to the time of the writer of Mark.

TedM

November 1, 2006, 09:46 AM

I don't know if you are still in the thread, TedM.

But it seems the main source for your trust in Mark's narrative as history is incredulity over the idea someone would write such "ludicrous" fiction.

But the way you've phrased it takes the fictionalizing completely out of context. Of course the story would not be made up cold, from scratch, out of the blue, devoid of any pre-existing thought.

When you remove the presumption of a historical Jesus the result is not a vacuum. It is for most Christians simply because they have never given the slightest thought to an alternative development for early Christianity.

Odd that so much energy goes into endless excuse-making and so little into the much more interesting question of what actually happened.

I don't think the pre-existing thought overcomes my arguments for it being ludicrous fiction if that thought included the idea that there was no actual preacher named Jesus who had disciples, was influenced by JTB, was considered by some to be a healer and the Messiah, and was crucified by Pilate, and was at some point believed to have been resurrected in some form. Either THAT was the pre-existing thought or the idea that Mark created THAT out of other pre-existing thoughts from the OT is ludicrous, the way I see it.

ted

aa5874

November 1, 2006, 11:49 AM

The writer of Goldilock had no need to clarify that he was writing fiction. The writer of Mark had a much greater need, since he was writing about a being that was highly venerated by at least SOME prior to his writing.

I would think that Mark also had a greater need not to be careless, since as you claim Jesus was highly venerated.

It has already been established that being blind, deaf, dumb, epileptic, mentally unstable or any other infirmity is not the result of a spirit or devil. The miraculous actions of Jesus are identical to what is commonly called witchcraft, which was criminalised at one time, and still maybe in some jurisdictions.

If the author of Mark was careless or misled by the eyewitnesses, then his writings have no credibility. There are no known documents that can be used to corroborate any statement or event of Jesus in the book called.Mark.

And what makes the author of Mark more relevant to fiction is that historical facts, pertaining to geography, eludes him. And since the author of Mark, living, as assumed, within at least 50 years of Jesus, it is incredible that all of his carelessness or erroneous information was not detected by any-one and left to confuse all.

Malachi151

November 1, 2006, 11:56 AM

And what makes the author of Mark more relevant to fiction is that historical facts, pertaining to geography, eludes him. And since the author of Mark, living, as assumed, within at least 50 years of Jesus, it is incredible that all of his carelessness or erroneous information was not detected by any-one and left to confuse all.

It was detected by many people, all the non-Christians to ridiculed the religion.

It was never more than a small movement among uneducated poor people with a handful of educated apologists for more 200 - 300 years.

People in America today can't find their own state on a map, and you expect slaves and illiterates in Rome to know that the geography in a gospel (which they never read), was askew?

TedM

November 1, 2006, 12:44 PM

I would think that Mark also had a greater need not to be careless, since as you claim Jesus was highly venerated.

Unfortunately, people don't always rise to the occasion a circumstance calls for.

It has already been established that being blind, deaf, dumb, epileptic, mentally unstable or any other infirmity is not the result of a spirit or devil.

Knowing a material cause doesn't rule out a spiritual one. This is not relevant to our discussion however, I think..

If the author of Mark was careless or misled by the eyewitnesses, then his writings have no credibility.

That doesn't mean they don't contain real truths..only that they will be justifiably subject to more skepticm than other writings with more credibility.

There are no known documents that can be used to corroborate any statement or event of Jesus in the book called.Mark.

What about the event of the 'crucifixion'. This is one of many examples that are corroberated in other documents.

And what makes the author of Mark more relevant to fiction is that historical facts, pertaining to geography, eludes him.

I don't see why? Why should someone writing pure fiction be allowed to get the geography wrong and one writing about non-fiction not? It wasn't as though Mark was making up cities and places that didn't exist as might be the case with pure fiction. Therefore this IMO falls under the category of simply carelessness. Carelessness can apply to either fiction or non-fiction.

And since the author of Mark, living, as assumed, within at least 50 years of Jesus, it is incredible that all of his carelessness or erroneous information was not detected by any-one and left to confuse all.

I don't think we know if it was or wasn't early on--only that there was no record of it. It seems to me that we also should expect that someone would have objected even moreso to the very sudden humanization and historization of the Messiah had that been what Mark had done--yet I know of no early documents--Christian or non-Christian--which do that.

ted

rlogan

November 1, 2006, 04:02 PM

I don't think the pre-existing thought overcomes my arguments for it being ludicrous fiction if that thought included the idea that there was no actual preacher named Jesus who had disciples, was influenced by JTB, was considered by some to be a healer and the Messiah, and was crucified by Pilate, and was at some point believed to have been resurrected in some form. Either THAT was the pre-existing thought or the idea that Mark created THAT out of other pre-existing thoughts from the OT is ludicrous, the way I see it.

ted

Hi ted.

Maybe you could word this better. I don't want to try paraphrasing.

Whether you like Doherty or not I'm just going to use it as an example. He presents a pretty complete scenario in place of the "official" story. That is what I mean.

The excuse-making is really half-baked and becomes absurd as it accumulates into such a huge pile.

The "careless" excuse, for example. You don't get to just throw out this hand-waving universal dismissal of nearly everything that is wrong. I see it has become your darling.

Provide for us an actual explanation as to how "carelessness" results in the set of mistakes made by someone writing close in place and time to the alleged circumstance. Why such "carelessness" fits in with writing a gospel in the first place. Who is this person, exactly, and what is it about him and his motivations that make each mistake highly likely? "Careless" is not an explanation.

An explanation is demonstrating why, for example using "who's" instead of "whose" or "you're" instead of "your" is likely to be done by a professional writer being "careless" as opposed to someone who simply does not know any better.

Detail for us how it is actually very probable that the geographical, historical, and other errors are made by someone living in the area, close in time to the events, and yet nobody hearing or reading it that is also close in place or time manages to alert him to it before the piece is widely enough distributed to preclude rewriting it correctly.

As it is now, your excuse is no better than just saying maybe the writer was drunk. Drunk at precisely all of the places where these mistakes are made. You need an explanation of why drunk fits better than the alternative.

TedM

November 1, 2006, 05:57 PM

Hi ted.

Maybe you could word this better. I don't want to try paraphrasing.

Hey, Rlogan. First, I'll start by saying that 'ludicrous' is an unclear term for me to have used. I'm expressing an opinion that it is ludricrous for Mark to have taken a Doherty-like scenario and triy to pass off a historical Jesus from it the way he did, AND TO HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF OBJECTION. We don't much early literature, but it seems like this would have been a VERY big issue of contention--resulting in a major split in Christianity--yet while we see gnostic and docetic literature and branches within more traditional Christianity, we don't see evidence of a non-historical Jesus camp (unless PERHAPS this is referrenced in 1 John). In addition to this, my belief that the compatibility of all the evidence with the basic outline of a historical Jesus increases the degree to which I find the 'historicalization' hypothesis to be unlikely.

The "careless" excuse, for example. You don't get to just throw out this hand-waving universal dismissal of nearly everything that is wrong. I see it has become your darling.

Provide for us an actual explanation as to how "carelessness" results in the set of mistakes made by someone writing close in place and time to the alleged circumstance.

People can be careless regardless of where or when they do something. It comes down to research and likely generic knowledge. However, EVEN IF a local would not have called a 'stepdaughter' a 'daughter' or a 'tetrarch' a 'king' or named a city correctly, that doesn't argue for fiction. It only argues against local authorship. That's why such mistakes IMO aren't helpful to the 'total fiction' argument.

I hope this helps to clarify what I'm saying.

ted

spin

November 1, 2006, 09:35 PM

Hey, Rlogan. First, I'll start by saying that 'ludicrous' is an unclear term for me to have used. I'm expressing an opinion that it is ludricrous for Mark to have taken a Doherty-like scenario and triy to pass off a historical Jesus from it the way he did, AND TO HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF OBJECTION.
That says that the Marcan writer was not responsible for making anything up. He gathered what was available to him and did his bit, as Paul had done. It could be, to my way of thinking, based on some person who once existed, but then again there is no need for that. Tradition development is self-driven.

We don't much early literature, but it seems like this would have been a VERY big issue of contention--resulting in a major split in Christianity--yet while we see gnostic and docetic literature and branches within more traditional Christianity, we don't see evidence of a non-historical Jesus camp (unless PERHAPS this is referrenced in 1 John).
You seem to misunderstand the process that was happening: gnostic thought along with docetic thought, and all the other thought can happily exist together as a sea of contemporary thought, the distinction of one from the other not mattering until some crisis arises calling for a division between what is acceptable and what is not.

Where the tradition came from is irrelevant, as long as one adheres to its current state. People in Rome can in no way decide whether something reported to have happened in Palestine was factual or not. People who have been attuned to some form of savior will be attuned to the notion of a savior as expounded in a religious text which belongs to a particular tradition. You learn more about the savior from the literature, for you don't have any other way to check out the fact of the narrative.

This is where the important questions of where and when the texts were written and in what literary tradition context matters. If one cannot answer those questions or one can answer them in a way which dislocates the writing from the narrative context, then any rationalizations based on modern imputations will have no value.

In addition to this, my belief that the compatibility of all the evidence with the basic outline of a historical Jesus increases the degree to which I find the 'historicalization' hypothesis to be unlikely.
You seem not to consider the context we are dealing with and to be retrojecting your own values onto the past.

Perhaps you can quantify "the compatibility of all the evidence" so that we can understand that this is more than hyperbole. When I have shown evidence that the text evinces the fact that it is not a witness, I can't see that you've got any evidence whatsoever. You've only got your plausibility angle.

People can be careless regardless of where or when they do something. It comes down to research and likely generic knowledge. However, EVEN IF a local would not have called a 'stepdaughter' a 'daughter' or a 'tetrarch' a 'king' or named a city correctly, that doesn't argue for fiction. It only argues against local authorship.
I personally said nothing about fiction. I said that you can in no way extract anything historical from the data, because your primary report is plainly not a witness. The writer makes no claim of direct knowledges and evinces none. It is your job to get beyond these excuses of yours and come up with something tangible. As it is you have not a shred of a case. Instead, all you are doing is sniping at the only other possibility you can perceive, and by so doing thinking you are getting somewhere.

That's why such mistakes IMO aren't helpful to the 'total fiction' argument.
See what I mean about you not saying anything at all? You are merely attacking the opposite your non-enunciated undefended position. The best you've done so far is to argue for some plausibility of the literature you are analysing. Who really cares whether it is plausible or not? You have nothing to show for your participation in this thread, TedM. You've made no substantive comments at all. You even admit that your source may not be a witness at all. So, what have you got?

spin

rlogan

November 1, 2006, 10:10 PM

I'm expressing an opinion that it is ludricrous for Mark to have taken a Doherty-like scenario and triy to pass off a historical Jesus from it the way he did, AND TO HAVE SUCCEEDED WITHOUT ANY SIGN OF OBJECTION. We don't much early literature, but it seems like this would have been a VERY big issue of contention--resulting in a major split in Christianity--yet while we see gnostic and docetic literature and branches within more traditional Christianity, we don't see evidence of a non-historical Jesus camp (unless PERHAPS this is referrenced in 1 John).

Hi Ted again. So much jumbled into one paragraph.

It is a mystery what you mean, exactly, by non-historical Jesus camp. It's as if you wish for some "There was no Jesus" movement erecting monuments and publishing books in the 1st century.

What are you saying?

Look at how far the "Prophet" Elijah Mohammed got in 20th century USA with his completely fabricated "Nation of Islam".

Malcom X finally goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca and discovers Elijah Mohammed is a total fraud insofar as any connection to real Islam is concerned.

If that total fabrication can pass muster for so many years in the 20th century USA then it must be an order of magnitude easier to pass off a story line removed in time and place from Rome.

People can be careless regardless of where or when they do something.

Does not advance discussion one iota.

It comes down to research and likely generic knowledge. However, EVEN IF a local would not have called a 'stepdaughter' a 'daughter' or a 'tetrarch' a 'king' or named a city correctly, that doesn't argue for fiction. It only argues against local authorship. That's why such mistakes IMO aren't helpful to the 'total fiction' argument.

One thing at a time. Looks like you are accepting that Mark was written outside Palestine, at least. Not so sure about outside the time frame.

Let's not revisit this. Are you saying so or not?

TedM

November 1, 2006, 10:35 PM

That says that the Marcan writer was not responsible for making anything up. He gathered what was available to him and did his bit, as Paul had done. It could be, to my way of thinking, based on some person who once existed, but then again there is no need for that. Tradition development is self-driven.

I was clarifying for Rlogan that it is my opinion that human nature is such that Mark would not have gotten away with taking a tradition about a spirit man in some other sphere (ala Doherty) and putting him in recent history.

Where the tradition came from is irrelevant, as long as one adheres to its current state. People in Rome can in no way decide whether something reported to have happened in Palestine was factual or not.

What about all the Jews who lived in Rome throughout the beginning of Christianity onward? Of course they would have known if Jesus lived or not! Don't you think they talked to each other? We're taking about the Messiah here.

This is where the important questions of where and when the texts were written and in what literary tradition context matters. If one cannot answer those questions or one can answer them in a way which dislocates the writing from the narrative context, then any rationalizations based on modern imputations will have no value.

Sure, if it was written in India or China you might have a point. But I can't think of a plausible time or place this could have been written and actually believed to have been true had Jesus really never lived or had some reputation had he lived.

You seem not to consider the context we are dealing with and to be retrojecting your own values onto the past.

As shown above, I AM considering the context. If I've got an inaccurate picture of how Jews would have communicated about the origins of a Messiah movement, just let me know.

Perhaps you can quantify "the compatibility of all the evidence" so that we can understand that this is more than hyperbole.

We have multiple attestation to the basics I mentioned in the other post--Jesus lived, was influenced by JTB, had disciples, was a teacher, healer, was crucified, believed to have been resurrected in some form. I don't know of any early evidence which disputes these basic claims. That's what I mean by compatibility.

When I have shown evidence that the text evinces the fact that it is not a witness I can't see that you've got any evidence whatsoever. You've only got your plausibility angle.

You may misunderstand me. I agree that portions of Mark are inaccurate, and therefore one can justifiably be skeptical of the entire thing. However, I believe other evidence supports basic parts of Mark's story.

I personally said nothing about fiction.

Well, others have, and I'm responding to that.

I said that you can in no way extract anything historical from the data, because your primary report is plainly not a witness. The writer makes no claim of direct knowledges and evinces none.

The primary report is plainly not a firsthand witness to certain things because the context makes it clear that he was not present. Others likely weren't witnessed first hand due to the probability that the OT would not have been referenced or mimicked by chance or on purpose or unlikely numerical occurances. And for yet others, we can't say whether he witnessed them or heard about them second-hand or completely made them up.

It is your job to get beyond these excuses of yours and come up with something tangible. As it is you have not a shred of a case. Instead, all you are doing is sniping at the only other possibility you can perceive, and by so doing thinking you are getting somewhere.

Did I say I was trying to make a case to prove something to people here? I don't remember saying that.

The best you've done so far is to argue for some plausibility of the literature you are analysing. Who really cares whether it is plausible or not?

Those who claim it is pure fiction should care if they don't want to live in a biased mindframe.

You even admit that your source may not be a witness at all. So, what have you got?

Clearly Josephus wasn't a witness to many of the things he wrote, which at times included outlandish claims. Do you consider him to be lacking in credibility and therefore an untrustworthy source as a result? IF not, why not? This is what you have done with GMark. How can you really know if ANY specific text that we can't prove Josephus was a witness to is credible? If you can't, what have you got?

ted

TedM

November 1, 2006, 10:56 PM

It is a mystery what you mean, exactly, by non-historical Jesus camp. It's as if you wish for some "There was no Jesus" movement erecting monuments and publishing books in the 1st century.

If Paul's many converts worshipped a non-historical Jesus, then I would absolutely expect such a movement to have continued and to have violently opposed those that bought into the 'great lie' written by Mark. That we have no record of such a movement or clash to me is very telling--ie, there was no group that ever thought Jesus wasn't similar to the one portrayed in GMark. In fact, we know that Paul's movement DID continue, yet we don't hear a peep about such objections from them.

Sorry, I can't speak to the Mohammed example. It may be wrong, it may be right. And, even if it is right, it doesn't necessarily serve as a good example.

One thing at a time. Looks like you are accepting that Mark was written outside Palestine, at least. Not so sure about outside the time frame.

Let's not revisit this. Are you saying so or not?

I don't know enough to make a judgement on either. My main objection here is against the idea that Mark is pure fiction, and that the existance of SOME inaccuracies to a story such as the JTB beheading justify claiming the entire story is fictional. Just as Doherty's thesis relies on a combination of wildly unlikely scenarios--requiring numerous improbable explanations for dealing with the data we have--as untrustworthy as it might be, so does the "Mark is pure fiction" idea.

ted

spin

November 1, 2006, 11:35 PM

I was clarifying for Rlogan that it is my opinion that human nature is such that Mark would not have gotten away with taking a tradition about a spirit man in some other sphere (ala Doherty) and putting him in recent history.
You can't say what you did though, because of the literary nature of the work. As I pointed out there was no way to verify such things in ancient times. People took reports on face value whether correct or not.

What about all the Jews who lived in Rome throughout the beginning of Christianity onward?
They didn't have a crystal ball, TedM. They also were in Rome, not in Palestine.

Of course they would have known if Jesus lived or not!
Rubbish.

Don't you think they talked to each other? We're taking about the Messiah here.
You have to establish christians in Rome in the first century and that dating issue is highly complicated, especially when the only sources for a christian presence were maintained by christian scribes. (How long does it take marginal comments to creep into a text?)

Sure, if it was written in India or China you might have a point. But I can't think of a plausible time or place this could have been written and actually believed to have been true had Jesus really never lived or had some reputation had he lived.
You're not making much sense here. You seem to assume an extremely modern flow of news (without the manipulation).

I keep trying to make people realise that checking wasn't done through the example of Ebion, who plainly didn't exist, but who was given a life as the eponymous founder of the Ebionite movement. Nobody checked the information and yet the details of Ebion grew through the years.

As shown above, I AM considering the context.
Hell, you show no interest in when, where, to whom, or in what cultural context your sources were interested. How can you possibly be considering the context??

If I've got an inaccurate picture of how Jews would have communicated about the origins of a Messiah movement, just let me know.
How would any particular group of Jews know anything about the origins of a messiah movement. They might here that someone was saying that they were somebody, but does that mean that that someone actually lived? No. It means they heard a report.

We have multiple attestation...
Can you demonstrate that there is actually multiple attestation or do we have a evolutionary body of of information which cannot be seen as multiple attestation of anything other than many different people had Jesus information without any indication of separate sourcing.

...to the basics I mentioned in the other post--Jesus lived, was influenced by JTB, had disciples, was a teacher, healer, was crucified,...
Up to here you have the tradition as collected by the Marcan writer. Matthew and Luke both acknowledge the Marcan source by using it so frequently. No multiple attestation there. There is acknowledgement of expanded tradition though.

believed to have been resurrected in some form. I don't know of any early evidence which disputes these basic claims. That's what I mean by compatibility.
Why should there have been disputes about such claims? Who would have cared? Who would have had grounds to dispute reports of far off events? Did anyone dispute the existence of Ebion? Why should they? Because they need to live up to your requirements?

You may misunderstand me. I agree that portions of Mark are inaccurate, and therefore one can justifiably be skeptical of the entire thing. However, I believe other evidence supports basic parts of Mark's story.
Any entirely separate tradition though, or just part of the evolutionary process of an undifferentiated tradition?

Well, others have, and I'm responding to that.
I merely give my point of departure, because much of this thread you have been dealing with me.

I said that you can in no way extract anything historical from the data, because your primary report is plainly not a witness. The writer makes no claim of direct knowledges and evinces none.The primary report is plainly not a firsthand witness to certain things because the context makes it clear that he was not present. Others likely weren't witnessed first hand due to the probability that the OT would not have been referenced or mimicked by chance or on purpose or unlikely numerical occurances. And for yet others, we can't say whether he witnessed them or heard about them second-hand or completely made them up.
Is this an agreement? If so, doesn't that mean that you should abandon your support and join my agnostic ranks?

Did I say I was trying to make a case to prove something to people here? I don't remember saying that.
I think you were trying in your own way to say something tangible. I was just trying to get you to stay on that track, but are you off it completely now?

The best you've done so far is to argue for some plausibility of the literature you are analysing. Who really cares whether it is plausible or not?Those who claim it is pure fiction should care if they don't want to live in a biased mindframe.
I have said that plausibility is not a sufficient condition in this issue. Most fiction works on plausibility, so it is in itself of little relevance.

Clearly Josephus wasn't a witness to many of the things he wrote, which at times included outlandish claims. Do you consider him to be lacking in credibility and therefore an untrustworthy source as a result? IF not, why not?
We usually use Josephus for his own times. His job, like that of historians of the period was to verify the information he collected. Our job is to verify the information he collected and on innumerable occasions we have been able to do so. Josephus displays so much information that can be checked that we can consider his other material as prima facie historical.

Now, which outlandish claims have you found about what Josephus says about his own times? What are their purpose in their contexts?

This is what you have done with GMark.
What I have done with Josephus is consider a lot of his information in respect to other literary historical sources, as well as the archaeological and epigraphic materials that have come to us. All the relevant evidence available supports Josephus rather than contradicts him. Do you have any problems with Josephus's geography? He talks a great deal about geographically verifiable information. On the instances where the Marcan writer does geography, why does he make errors? Do you have problems with any of the historical information that you can check in Josephus?

How can you really know if ANY specific text that we can't prove Josephus was a witness to is credible?
Is Josephus the be all and end all in the matter? Our job is to verify the texts we want to use. We have a number of issues with Mark:
he gets most of the facts wrong regarding Herod Antipas and his wife;
he gets the geography wrong;
he creates dramatic units rather than historical ones
These point away from us dealing with a historically viable narrative. These plus the Latin underpinning of some of the language point to a text that was written away from the narrative context of Herodian Palestine.

We know what was available for Josephus to do his history. He was an eye-witness to a lot of what he writes about for his time. Other material, because it relates to his own time he certainly had ways of obtaining, seeing as he lived in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately our evidence for Mark says that it wasn't the case for that writer.

What we have in the end is you with an ontological commitment for which you don't have the epistemology.

spin

TedM

November 2, 2006, 01:13 AM

You know much more about this stuff than I spin, and I appreciate your patience in dealing with my positions here..

About the Jews
They didn't have a crystal ball, TedM. They also were in Rome, not in Palestine.You have to establish christians in Rome in the first century and that dating issue is highly complicated, especially when the only sources for a christian presence were maintained by christian scribes. (How long does it take marginal comments to creep into a text?)

I don't know what scholars say, but Paul's writings and travels seemed to me to reveal Christian presence in Rome in the 40's and Jews all over the Roman empire. Jews and Christians argued throughout the empire on Paul's version of Christianity. As such it seems logical to conclude that those same Jews would be very aware of the origin of the movement--which of course would include its founder--especially since he is being touted as the Messiah rose from the dead!

I keep trying to make people realise that checking wasn't done through the example of Ebion

Sorry, I don't know enough to compare.

Can you demonstrate that there is actually multiple attestation or do we have a evolutionary body of of information which cannot be seen as multiple attestation of anything other than many different people had Jesus information without any indication of separate sourcing. Up to here you have the tradition as collected by the Marcan writer. Matthew and Luke both acknowledge the Marcan source by using it so frequently. No multiple attestation there. There is acknowledgement of expanded tradition though.

I don't know how you deal with the Didache or Luke's claim to using eyewitnesses. I don't know what you consider sufficient for demonstrating multiple attestation.

Is this an agreement? If so, doesn't that mean that you should abandon your support and join my agnostic ranks?

I would be agnostic if all we have is GMark, but I think there may be historical value to finding compatibility in other sources which appear to be unrelated, as well as various arguments with regard to human nature.

I think you were trying in your own way to say something tangible. I was just trying to get you to stay on that track, but are you off it completely now?

I'm more than happy to be off it.. Just don't want to take the time.

We usually use Josephus for his own times. His job, like that of historians of the period was to verify the information he collected. Our job is to verify the information he collected and on innumerable occasions we have been able to do so. Josephus displays so much information that can be checked that we can consider his other material as prima facie historical.

Now, which outlandish claims have you found about what Josephus says about his own times? What are their purpose in their contexts?

What I have done with Josephus is consider a lot of his information in respect to other literary historical sources, as well as the archaeological and epigraphic materials that have come to us. All the relevant evidence available supports Josephus rather than contradicts him. Do you have any problems with Josephus's geography? He talks a great deal about geographically verifiable information. On the instances where the Marcan writer does geography, why does he make errors? Do you have problems with any of the historical information that you can check in Josephus?

I don't know enough, but according to this Josephus is criticized for being inaccurate in a number of places. If true, I was curious how you handle it:

http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html

On Josephus' Accuracy

Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness".19 The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers".20 Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent.21 The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long22 but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ."23 Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe."
19 S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, his Vita and Development as a Historian, Leiden 1979, p. 233.
20 Idem, ibid., index s.v. Josephus (p, 276).

21 Idem, ibid., pp. 33-34.

22 Cf. O. Betz, in A. Oppenheimer - U. Rappaport - M.