TedM

Since Paul refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ" we know that the term preceded Mark. Therefore we know that Mark didn't invent the name nor of his exalted role as Savior/Messiah. I agree with others that the lack of identifying the father's name is not strong evidence for the work as being fiction either, as works that are religiously motivated don't always adhere to strict historical standards. This introduction is simply NOT good evidence for fiction.

Next point, please.

ted

Ben C Smith

This is fallacious.

Let us agree that the miracles Mark often attributes to Jesus are impossible. It follows that Mark is not writing accurate history, but it does not at all follow that Mark is not even attempting to write history.

Simply put, it may be impossible for those miracles to have occurred, but it is certainly not impossible for Mark to have believed that they occurred.

The biographies of Francis of Assisi, some of which were written by those who had known the man, do not shy away from miracle stories. This means only that the biographers thought the miracles had transpired; it certainly does not mean that they were consciously writing in the genre of fiction.

This is no small fallacy; as far as I can see it is fatal to your positive contention that the whole of Mark is fiction. (That is, your contention may yet be correct, but certainly not for the reason you have adduced in this statement.)

Ben.

Solo

Are you xhoor ?

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Authors of Fiction often place themselves in their Creation and one of the characters can in effect be the Author speaking (what the author really believes). "Mark" is the easiest of the Gospels to analyze here because "Mark" created the Original Gospel narrative. Paul didn't know the Gospel Narrative because it didn't exist at the time. A Narrative consisting of the Impossible must be Created. It can not be History.

"Mark" is speaking through his Jesus and Casts the Disciples and especially Peter as "Mark's" opponents who represent the real opponents of "Mark's" time. "Mark" saw the Historical Disciples and their successors of "Mark's" time as emphasizing the Ministry of Jesus (as documented by Q). "Mark" Rejected this emphasis and instead emphasized Jesus' supposed Passion (as did Paul). "Mark's" Rejection of the Historical witness to Jesus than is the best evidence of HJ. Because "Mark" created the Gospel Narrative his characters are Consistent.

Next in the Evolution of the JeSuspies comes "Matthew". "Matthew" itself may be relevant to the Theme of this Thread as the name is close to the word for "Disciple" in Greek. "Matthew" is Forced to Inherit "Mark's" Jesus along with the Disciple's Baggage so now all the characters are no longer simple and consistent. So Who exactly in "Matthew" is the Author speaking through? "Mark" took the Jesus movement back to its supposed Founder by Rejecting The Disciples. "Matthew" Rejected "Mark's" Rejection and Rehabilitated The Disciples. I think "Matthew" than speaks through The Disciples and especially Peter and Reinstates their Authority.

Next comes "Luke" and in her time The Disciples have already Evolved into loyal followers of Jesus. Her Mission than is to Create a succession From The Disciples. As Randel Helms argues I think "Luke" was a woman and she has placed herself (my argument) in "Luke" as Mary. Note the prominence of women in "Luke".

Finally, in "John" Jesus finishes developing and emerges from the holy see to acquire land. In "John" it is no longer "God's Plan" that "Mark's" Jesus is subject to (no Gethsemane torture) but "The Plan". In "John" the Author places himself as "The Beloved Disciple", another Name indicating Fiction. "John" is also a Reaction to the previous Gospels and specifically "Peter" is downgraded and "John" is upgraded as "John's" community probably wanted to emphasize their authority as coming from John as opposed to competition of their time that emphasized authority from Peter.



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

Solo

ok, the impossible events were created, but why should I assume all the possible ones were also created ? If, for example, Mark had it up to < > with Peter, why do you think he would have had to, in inventing the incident at Caesarea Philippi, make Jesus look like he flipped ?

No big argument there. I believe Paul's "silence" about historical Jesus came precisely from the same root, except he was rejecting not just the disciples but the value of the earthly deeds of Jesus. Paul believed what he preached; Jesus suffered (voluntarily) humiliation in his earthly existence and no details of it were of didactic value as Paul's generation would meet up with JC "in the air".

Interesting.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

If Luke is a woman, how do you explain Luke referring to himself with a masculine participle in his prologue?

Επειδηπερ πολλοι επεχειρησαν αναταξασθαι διηγησιν περι των πεπληροφορημενων εν ημιν πραγματων, καθως παρεδοσαν ημιν οι απ αρχης αυτοπται και υπηρεται γενομενοι του λογου, εδοξε καμοι παρηκολουθηκοτι ανωθεν πασιν ακριβως καθεξης σοι γραψαι, κρατιστε Θεοφιλε, ινα επιγνως περι ων κατηχηθης λογων την ασφαλειαν.

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having investigated [masculine participle modifying me] all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

Or is this another hypothesis that beaches itself on the sandbar of hard fact?

Ben.

JoeWallack

Dedicated to aa5874


JW:
Continuing with the Name Jesus:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

"And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan."

As previously mentioned "MarK" provides no Origin of Jesus in the form of son of so and so which is Unusual for Narratives of people. If we contract the population to Religious writings than a son of so and so might be replaced by some Heavenly origin. Even so, the entire population of writings is what should be primarily considered to determine what is usual and what is unusual.

Traditionally Christianity has given the Apology for this ANamely of "Mark" that "Mark" was written after "Matthew" had given the origin of Jesus and is an abbreviated version of "Matthew" with no need to repeat the origin of Jesus per "Matthew". An indirect confession that lack of origin in "Mark" was unusual and needed to be explained. It appears though that "Mark" is the original Gospel narrative. So why is there no origin for the Heroclaus?

We can see the problem this creates for subsequent Gospels:

"Matthew" = Jesus, son of Joseph/Spirit, son of Jacob

"Luke" = Jesus, son of Joseph/Spirit, son of Heli

"John" = Jesus, son/brother/father of God (really, not really)

Marcion (as opposed to the Gospel authors, a known person) = Jesus, came from Heaven

No agreement by subsequent Gospels because the original source lacked this information and presumably there was no or at least they did not have access to historical information. In every Gospel above though Jesus has some origin. Is there any comParable religious writing where the Hero has no origin?

Since "Mark" is not providing what would normally be Expected we need to consider if there is a Literary reason. As "Mark" literally reads here:

""And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan."

Jesus' "origin" is Galilee (I've already qualified that well into the Narrative Mary is identified as Jesus' mother but the purpose is for the specific point being made at the time - real relatives). If we fast forward to the End of "Mark" (the true end, not the Fictional end):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

"But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."

We see that Jesus' Destination is Galilee. And just as we have no description of the Origin of Jesus in Galilee we also have no description of the destination of Jesus in Galilee. This gives the Literary structure of "Mark" a Balance. So we have a Literary reason for "Mark" not to provide the Origin of Jesus. And once again we see the Inheritors of "Mark" all giving different Destination stories because the original source lacked it.

If "Mark" did use Literary techniques such as the above in the construction of his story than this would interfere with the presentation of History and is evidence of Fiction.

By The Way, when I say "Fiction" here I mean "False". I Am not arguing here that "Mark" was intended as Fiction.



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

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

Steven Avery

Haven't we seen that in the Wonderland world of IIDB unanimous textual and patristic evidence is not considered significant ?

That a theory of interpolation (eg. spin's theory on three separated Corinthians verses) is only dependent on how it fits the individual's eclectic and individualistic doctrinal and interpretative views ? Unaminous hard evidence against is simply ignored.

Essentially nobody (present writer excepted) objects to such silliness in other venues so how does JW now become here the defender of common sense ? Gazing at the Looking Glass world of IIDB.

Shalom,
Steven

Doug Shaver

I've never seen it. Don't know about anyone else.

Ben C Smith

You must have misunderstood the question. Several unanimously attested passages spring to mind as texts whose unanimous support evidently means very little to some on this board.

The eucharistic passage in 1 Corinthians, the resurrection witness passage in the same, the James passages in Galatians.... And there are more.

Ben.