Biff the unclean

You must have a different edition from the ones I have.

Doug Shaver

Were Robbins and Laurents not good writers?

Peter Kirby

Note that while Perrin advocated a criterion of dissimilarity, questers such as Crossan operate independently of one, and good old N. T. Wright practically stands it on its head in his work.

I voted "no," and I am not a believer in the mythicist hypotheses.

gurugeorge

Hmm, well it depends on what you mean by a "good" writer. The story "Mark" initiated and that "Luke" and the others "retroconned" has legs, it has resonance. It may not literally be the greatest story ever told, but it's a rollicking good read that has captivated many people down through the centuries.

As Jewish god-man superhero stories go, it's not bad at all

Solo

Not only do I believe "dissimilarity" is a valid criterion in a historical study, I believe it is an important one.
One example: Jesus' lack of filial piety. This would be something very difficult to invent because it is so dissimilar to Judaic standards of his time. Even Paul demands filial respect to one's parents (Rom 1:30). If it was just Jesus preceived rudeness to his mother at the marriage of Cana, one could say, well obviously the story is invented Bacchanalia and the backtalk has a theological meaning. But the problem is that Jesus humiliates his mother publicly in Mark also (with no merrymaking as context) and then of course there is the "let the dead bury the dead" bit of wisdom that (E.P.Sanders says) would have been such a flagrant departure from custom, so as to shock to every single Jew who heard it.

So, this naturally breeds a question: who in the early movement, said to have been founded by a charismatic leader, would have had the authority to violate custom and common sense and demand that the immediate attention to himself be greater than the filial duty to bury one's dead father ? The answer I think is noone: either Jesus or the storyteller (or both) was (were) out of his (their) mind(s). Jesus would have gotten away with it because he was a leader. Would the storyteller - if it were not true ? If the answer is "yes" please explain what the saying alludes to.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

That would a problem, arguably, if the inventor of the story was a devout Jew. Have we a good reason to assume he was?

Solo

I disagree that only the devout would be inhibited putting something like that on paper without "authority". If there was no Jesus, how was this authority established ? Any ideas, Doug ?

(Clue: there is a short story by a Czech poet, which absolutely scandalized his readership. It was about a young man who left his dying mother to go dancing. The dancer character so fascinated a young Chilean poet that he changed his name to that of the author of the tale.)

Jiri

Vorkosigan

Solo, this is a good illustration of why dissimilarity is a bad criterion. First, in order to perceive "dissimilarity" you have to assume the event portrayed is historical, as you do here. But in fact, it is more likely that the tales of Jesus' interaction with his family have a pedogogical function within the cult. How does one be a disciple? Regard one's fellow believers as family, answers Jesus. Burton Mack has identified this as a typical Cynic construction -- For example, when Alexander, the king of Macedonians, was asked by someone where he kept his treasure, he said: "In these!" pointing to his friends, according to Theon.

Another way to view the pericope is to argue that the writer of Mark is criticizing the Jerusalem in-group, the "family" of Jesus.

A second problem is that the dissimilarity criterion is that it is very subjective. How much dissimilarity is enough to qualify?

The third problem is that it posits two constructions, Jewish culture and Hellenistic culture, which are very broad and loose categories, and so vast that there one can align almost anything with some current in them, or oppose something to some current in them. The way, for example, Jesus' pronouncement 'against' his family in Mark has a very Cynic feel to it.

I could go on. Suffice to say that the dissimilarity criterion is as Toto identified it, a bogus mode of investigation whose purpose is historical apologetics rather than historical inquiry.

Vorkosigan

No Robots

Is this the kinder, gentler face of post-Soviet mythicism?

Solo

I do not assume any such thing, nor is it necessary to assume historicity of the event in which it the saying ("let the dead bury their dead") is said to have originated. There are several possibilities: 1) the saying is an anonymous "community saying" in the sense Bultmann used the term, i.e. it originates within the Jesus-worshipping community, or is adopted by it, and is eventually attributed to mythical Jesus. 2) the saying originates with an "authority" other than Jesus in the early movement as a cultic metaphor, 3) the saying originates with Jesus as an origiator of the cult and something like the reported event actually occured.

The criterion of dissimilarity here helps to eliminate no 1. as a serious candidate. The saying would have been radically offensive to the religious sensibilities and conduct norms of the time and place(s). Therefore, it is extremely unlikely, it would have gained currency without some say-so that would have given sanction to such a profoundly disturbing proposition. Jesus' own acutely anticipated martyrdom in Mark does not explain how the author could expect his reader not to reel in disgust at the thought of abandoning the dead body of one's real father for Jesus. Something else is at work here.

You will just have to explain, Vork, where the interaction with Jesus' family, would go pedagogically to the point in extremis where Jesus (real or mythical) commands the abandonment of parent's corpse by a follower and is understood by a community of believers.

Also, I am sure a Cynic philosopher, as a disciple of Jesus, would grasp the risks associated with Jesus naming him a family by showing him what he proposes as examples of filial respect and loyalty.

Have you got in mind anyone in particular ? Critizing for what ? What possible point of criticism to any group or individual can be found in a story in which Jesus responds to a request of a grieving stranger by telling him to get a move on and leave his dead dad at once ? Pray, tell !

Why is the dissimilarity "subjective" in this particular case ? Is this not a blatant enough example of (a Jewish sectarian) subculture that had its own extremist and mal-adapted view of reality which mixed poetry and biology (or whatever contemporary stand-in for facts of life) ?

Two things: it's not just 'his' family that Jesus has attitude about in Mark, and it's not just Mark where this theme is played out. Why would "hating" one's parents in Luke (14:26) would be a precondition of joining up ?

Abandoning dead bodies of parents was not something pioneered by the Cynics, was it ? And would Cynics be able to shed light on the other kind of dead, the ones who were apparently capable of physical exertion ?

I do not doubt your interest in declaring "dissimilarity" bogus. I am sure there will be some who will nod vigorously to this and then go to the "Absurdity of Passover Crucifixion" thread to argue that Sanhedrin could not have been sitting during the holiday.

Jiri