the_cave

These three at least involve prior tales--for the moment, I'm not arguing for more than that.

Right, these are the arguments I'm mainly dealing with here.

I don't know, but in this example, it's interesting that there was a historical Gilgamesh!

Sure, that's an interesting question. I don't know myself. Not even sure Mark had anything to do with Rome, I have no idea.


That's fine; for now I'm willing to settle for whatever role can be recovered.

Though I wonder whether this was an actual expectation at the time? We do have an OT passage, but did people really think it was Messianic? I don't know enough to answer the question.

You seemed to be suggesting that there are in fact no causes for anything.

The moment at which Tertullian decided "Ah, "Ebionite" must mean there was an Ebion."

And I'm saying not all the data is explained by this solution.

Alright, then I look forward to it!

spin

You seem to miss a bit here. There is nothing new under the sun. Every story one can invent has prior convictions. Fight Club is 1) boy meets girl, 2) schizophrenia revealed, 3) Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde, 4) grand conspiracy, 5) escape from the oppression of daily life. All these tropes are in there and are necessary for the story of Fight Club. I could do the same with every movie I've seen. So, "inventing a nice story" is just another way of talking of repackaging that which you know.

I'm not so sure, though if there was a Gilgamesh how does one relate the material to the historical person? In the literature I was referring to, you would even find it hard to relate the episode to the Gilgamesh cycle unless you knew it well.

Do you think, as Josephus did, that the biblical character Abraham led an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians?

You might be interested in an old study of the Arthurian romances by Jessie L. Weston called From Ritual to Romance. She tracks back the motifs and tropes found in the Arthurian legends to Roman, Greek and even Babylonian sources. So, your desire to find historical sources behind nt stories needs to be made more transparent. What exactly are you after in your effort?

Well, if you are mulling over something that gets somewhere, perhaps you should develop an idea about it.

And if that is none?

Well, messiahs were cropping up, Judas, the Egyptian, Theudas, Menahem, even Simeon bar Kochba. Obviously there was an expectation.

I don't see where this came from. I merely complained about the lack of content in your statement, other than your idea that there must be an explanation for whatever. There is an explanation even for when you get the urge to eat or scratch yourself. Whether one can, or wants to, find it is another set of problems. In our case we are facing the difficulty of recoverability.

So you think it was Tertullian who decided it? Why?

But what are you saying? What is the purpose of your participation in this thread asking these questions and making these comments? Where are you going with them? You've made no exposition of your ideas. Instead of making bald statements, explain yourself. You should have some idea of how I work, my ideas of what can be known, how you go about finding what can be known. What are you on about?


spin

Vorkosigan

No, as I pointed out several times, the selection of Galilee was controlled by Isa 9:1. The typical pattern of the writer of Mark is to use a story frame and then fill it out with Old Testament quotes. For example, in the Temple Ruckus, the writer builds the story around Jehu's cleansing the temple in 2 Kings, and then fills in the details with Nehemiah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.

Perhaps. But look at the context. Practically the whole of Mark is controlled by the OT. With so much overwriting by the OT, and parallels to OT events, and incorporation of common sayings known to all, as well as parallels to Cynic and Rabbinical sources, what exactly is left for Jesus to have done and uttered.

I agree totally. The writer of Mark is writing at a time when people were carrying out missions in the Gentile world. Jesus' activities reflect that.

Why does one rule out the other? The author of Mark presents Jesus as Elijah, Elisha, Jehu, David, Moses, and Daniel in various parts of his gospel.

I can't tell either sometimes.

Like spin, I can only ask how you know that. Darrell Doughty has argued that in fact Mark's gospel ended at written, and it went back to the beginning in a circular fashion. And Isa 9:1 nicely explains both of Jesus' initial appearances, once in the flesh, and once in the spirit.

Why? Obviously at least some of Mark is pure fiction. How is it that as fiction it fails to have meaning and speak to the world? I personally would argue that it is the single most influential piece of fiction ever written. It continues to speak to today to people all over the world, including tens of millions of Americans who could not locate Galilee on a map, and have no idea which Herod ruled it in Jesus' day. And "something happened in Galilee" is a long way from anything involving Jesus. Galilee might be a nod to southern Syria, where some exegetes argue Mark was written (Burton Mack, for example).

As for the case of the young man at the tomb, he is controlled by the OT as well. The details for that sequence (Mk 16:6-8) are taken from 2 Kings 13:20-1. Mk 16:7 where that prediction is made is actually a linguistic and thematic parallel of 14:28 where Jesus predicts he'll appear again in Galilee, doublets being a typical Markan stylistic feature. So the young man at the Tomb is actually not referring to history, but to a previous supernatural prophecy of Jesus.

Now, you could argue that the story reflects some underlying reality. But let's go back to Mk 14.

14:26: And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27: And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' 28: But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee."

v26 gives us the famous Jewish messianic belief that the messiah would appear from the Mt of Olives. Jesus' presence on Olivet there is controlled by the OT, not history. v27 Jesus cites Zech 13:7, which, if you explore that chapter, you will soon find a hidden clue -- the writer of Mark has cited Zech 13 -- where? In Mark 1, where he presents John the Baptist in terms of Zech 13:4. Then in the very next verse, our hero goes on to say he'll appear again in Galilee. In other words, Jesus makes a prediction that he will appear again in Galilee...and there's a reminder of JBap for the alert reader. Perhaps Doughty's interpretation is right. <shrug> The whole thing is a construction whose beginning and end are connected, not by history, but through the medium of the OT.

There are a couple of other things. In Mk 14 the overall story frame is 2 Sam 15-6; Mark even cites the Greek of the Septaugint in the Greek verb exelthon, from exerchesthai -- it is the same as used in the LXX of David's flight from Jerusalem in 2 Sam 15:16. Raymond Brown points out that Passover night was traditionally spent within the boundaries of the city -- whose boundaries were temporarily and ceremonially enlarged for that one night, a practice Mark shows no cognizance of. In other words, the story itself is an invention off of the OT, contains practices at odds with then-current Jewish ones, contains implausibilities (Jesus and followers crossing the Kidron down a steep ravine at night), contains supernatural prophecies, and so on. There is no reason to think any of it contacts history anywhere.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

BTW, cave, for what it is worth, a number of exegetes -- Bultman, Dibelius, Taylor -- saw 16:7 as a later insertion to harmonize that passage with Mark 14:28 (others argue that BOTH are insertions). Indeed, 14:28 is missing from the Fayum Fragment, a late second century text that seems to be harmonizing Matt and Mk.

the_cave

But if we interviewed the author of Fight Club, and he said "You know, one of my inspiriations were these rumors I had heard of this office worker who once tried to blow up office buildings" and so forth, we would have to at least leave open the question of whether there was a historical inspiration for the story.

If the gospel account may have been based on oral traditions, that at least leaves the question open.

You look at the Gilgamesh of history, you compare his life to the legends, you leave aside the impossible, the improbable, and that which clearly comes from other sources, and everything else is left open to question.

Probably not. I suppose it's possible.

Sure, the whole thing may be myth. Or not. There is some evidence some of it comes from actual Celtic history. Or maybe it didn't. The question is left open.

I'm after what we can gather historically, and what questions we need to leave open.

I find it doubtful that Mark wrote in Rome, though where he was originally from is anyone's guess. His references to places in Palestine would mean nothing to Romans. He is also associated with Alexandria, so maybe that's where he wrote--it's a little closer at any rate. It was a center of learning, and many stories may have found their way there. But this is just a wild guess.

Then unless it can be determined absolutely that Galilee played no role whatsoever in the movement, the question must remain open.

I mean, was the mention of the area in Isaiah 9:1 usually associated with a Messianic prophecy? It kind of seems like it--there is other language there that is often quoted in that context--but I do wonder what the common expectation was at the time.

I was merely refering to your comment that "What we have today are things that came from before, which came from other things prior again." Obviously you would agree that something distinguishes Christianity from other religions. Like you, I'm interested in learning the origins of whatever that distinction was. I argue there must have been a time and a place where something happened to distinguish it.

Well, you said he did...do you disagree?

Just want to uncover the origins of Christianity.

I don't see that I need to do anything besides participate in the discussion. I'm just trying to uncover the most plausible origins of Christianity. When I read something I disagree with, I state why I disagree with it, and then I discuss it further. Not sure more is needed than that...

I assume we're all using more or less the same rational methodology, textual analysis, reasoning and deduction, and so forth.

the_cave

And a parable or two...do you think Mark was the original author of the parables? Just wondering what your opinion is.

You might as well ask "What exactly is left for Peter to have done and uttered?" Yet we know from Galatians that Peter was a historical person. For the moment, I'm less interested in what a historical Jesus might have said and done, than I am in the general location and behavior of the early Christians.

Well, at least this is some progress...when do you think this was? Again, we know from Galatians that this was fairly early on.

I suppose so (of course you should also include Jonah)

If the risen Jesus didn't appear in Galilee, why on earth would the young man say, after Jesus' death, that he will appear in Galilee? Wouldn't someone start to wonder why Jesus has not in fact appeared in Galilee?

It is possible, but then where is the resurrected Christ? Because he isn't at the beginning of the gospel.

So then question then is, when and where did Jesus appear in Galilee in the spirit?

I say if you're going to write that the Messiah will appear in Galilee, whether fiction or not, either you need to describe the Messiah appearing in Galilee, or there needs to be an understanding that this has actually happened. Otherwise, there's no point in writing it.

Sure, but it's different than "nothing happened in Galilee."

But then what would that mean? What would "a nod" to southern Syria indicate?

This sort of thing really seems like a stretch, but I'll leave it alone since it's not related to my argument.

Doesn't matter who says it, Jesus or the young man. It's still a statement that the risen Jesus will appear in Galilee.

So, that takes care of all the prophecies--why go back to Galilee?

Alright, Mark is using the same prophecy passage twice, sort of. I still don't see how Jesus' pre-resurrection appearance at the beginning of the gospel could be the equivalent of a post-resurrection appearance after the end, fiction or no.

But for what historical purpose? It's being used by a real group for real purposes, after all. It's not merely a work of fiction.

But we of course know, once again from Galatians, that there was in fact a group associated with Jerusalem who preached a risen Christ and whose leaders included a James and John and Peter. These documents of course have a connection with history. The question is, what is that history? We in fact seem to agree that Galilee became involved at some point...the question is, when?

the_cave

But Matthew agrees with Mark in both places. So it must have at least predated Matthew.

spin

Try interviewing the gospel writers. Would you necessarily believe them anyway?

If the gospel accounts (plural, they often don't agree, which suggests separate development of traditions) were based on mushroom drug experiences, as suggested by a few writers, does that mean we have to leave the question open? If so, what does it mean to leave the question open, not to be able to use rationality on the texts?

You don't have any information about his life.

Re: the Arthurian legends:
OK, you leave it open, I'll continue to do literary analysis, which is something that we can do with the literature.

When you don't know anything about a text except literary information, you've got to do a lot of leaving things open.

Have you ever wondered why despite the fact that Judean coins were prutahs and shekels, and even the Roman governors issued them, that Jesus talks of denarii and other Roman coins not in circulation in Palestine? What about why the demon is called Legion? Or why the palace in Mk 15:16 is explained as a praetorium? Or where the word "Herodian" with its Latin suffix came from? Or why the Latin verb "satisfacere" was translated by parts ("to make content") into a Greek that doesn't make sense (15:15)? And numerous other examples...

Stories can be set anywhere. Conrad wrote Nostromo set in South America. Someone wrote the Joseph novella (in Genesis) set in Egypt. Doesn't tell you where the text was written at all.

Why don't you face the fact that you didn't have a clue where Mark was written, but didn't like the implication that it may have been written in Rome where there was a large body of Greek speakers?

I can't determine that the Kalihari played no role whatsoever in the movement, though there is no gospel reference to it. That doesn't mean that it didn't. Your open questions are practically useless.

I can only say that Isaiah was pillaged for its prophetic potential.

I don't see how. Perhaps you should read Lucian's "Alexander" or even his "The Passing of Peregrinus" to get some idea of the religious background in the eastern Mediterrranean.

I don't see any great distinction. The collection of the parts makes different, the analysis of each part makes same.

This is what I said:

With just a name to go by, Tertullian added information to a non-entity he knew was called Ebion, though there was no eponymous founder of the Ebionite movement.

Where he got the idea about the name I don't know. Tertullian wasn't a Semitic scholar.

I think that "just" masks more than you want to say.

So, if you don't want to explain your position clearly, do you think there can be a meaningful conversation between us? It becomes more an interrogation. That's not pleasant.

You have simply evaded the question I asked you when you said

on which I asked: "But what are you saying?" In the context of Occam's Razor you were making a clear criticism, yet you didn't enunciate it. What were you saying and based on what?


spin

Vorkosigan

No, you can see 14:28 and 16:7 as a back insertion from Matthew.....

Amaleq13

If the risen Jesus did appear in Galilee, why would the author of Luke change the story from a post-death promise of a future appearance in Galilee to a pre-death prediction of resurrection made in Galilee?