Ted Hoffman

I posted Richard Carrier's message here and he writes:

"...99% of everything in Mark is definitely fiction, aimed at telling a "higher truth" through symbol and metaphor"

Michael, can you offer some guidance here? What do you think about Mark being a metaphorical text? Has anyone read The Empty Tomb ? I understand Carrier explains himself further in the book?

Kirby writes that the book has the following Chapters:

1. Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus?, Robert Greg Cavin
2. The Resurrection As Initially Improbable, Michael Martin
3. Why Resurrect Jesus?, Theodore Drange
4. Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation, Robert M. Price
5. The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb, Richard Carrier
6. The Case Against the Empty Tomb, Peter Kirby
7. The Burial of Jesus in Light of Jewish Law, Richard Carrier
8. Historical Evidence and the Empty Tomb Story: A Reply to William Lane Craig, Jeffery Jay Lowder
9. Taming the Tehom: The Sign of Jonah in Matthew, Evan Fales
10. The Plausibility of Theft, Richard Carrier
11. Financial Aspects of the Resurrection, J. Duncan M. Derrett
12. By This Time He Stinketh: The Attempts of William Lane Craig to Exhume Jesus, Robert M. Price
13. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory, Keith Parsons
14. Swinburne on the Resurrection, Michael Martin
15. Reformed Epistemology and Biblical Hermeneutics, Evan Fales

This book looks like a must read!

John A. Broussard

In my sketchy rememberance of Kazantzakis' Last Temptation of Christ, he has Christ reading what Mark has written. Christ shakes his head and says something like, "That's all wrong." But then he decides to let it pass with the thought that perhaps that's the way it should have been.

Vorkosigan

"...99% of everything in Mark is definitely fiction, aimed at telling a "higher truth" through symbol and metaphor"

Yup. I totally agree.

Ted Hoffman

The metaphorical argument for the composition of Mark, I understand, is based on the idea that a literal analysis of Mark's Jesus shows that Mark did not assign Jesus real human qualities. Jesus doesn't fart, doesn't laugh, and whereas we have JBap eating honey and locusts and wearing a skin when he makes his grand entrance, we are not told what Jesus wore.

Jesus' character is used primarily for theological reasons even where some qualities that can be considered human appear. His real father is the adoptionist one. He has no childhood. Mark shows no knowledge and no interest in Jesus as a flesh and blood person - Jesus' life takes place entirely in the author's theological and literary arena.

It seems plausible to me. I think its worthy of further exploration. I have read elsewhere that these concepts are available in the works of Kermode, Kelber and Tolbert. I am yet to see Carrier's take on it.

Vork, what do you think are the problems with this theory? I see it as having the potential of answering the question ragarding why Mark wrote his gospel.

neilgodfrey

Hi all,

I'm in the process of writing up something on the fictional and parabolic character of Mark and argue paradoxically that Mark shows no more interest in a historical Jesus than the letters of Paul do. The characters and events in his gospel are first and last literary and theological functions. They at no time go beyond their narrative or theological roles and betray no suggestion of historical or biographical interest.

I also look at the characteristics of parables and suggest that some of the 'unnatural' features of the gospel, such as the 16:8 ending, the strange portrayals of Jesus' disciples and mother et al, point to the entire gospel being written as a parable.

For those interested a temp draft can be found at http://www.usq.edu.au/users/godfrey/markdraftfp.htm

I'd be interested in any critical feedback from those with the patience to read it. (This is a revised draft of an earlier draft I posted elsewhere earlier.)

Cheers,
Neil Godfrey

Vorkosigan

Hell yes, Neil and Ted. I'll be all over this topic. But on Friday. Gotta finish the translation, and the kill the last chiasms in Mark. Mk 12 just gave up the cherry to me today. Just Mk 11 left....

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

As far as I know, the number who have can be counted on ones fingers. I'm waiting for it to come out along with many others. (Certain philosophers and apologists have already committed to reading it when it does come out.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Hi Peter,
I read your Case Against the Empty Tomb at the JHC. Excellent article. I have to get a copy of this - I have always wanted to read Michael Martin. Carrier also has my curiosity piqued over his Mark being metaphorical.
I read Neil Godfrey's article which gave me a clearer picture of the argument.
I am also hungry to read Drange's Why Resurrect Jesus? - I always knew him as a philosopher - I wonder what kind of Philosophical transvaluation he takes the theology of the resurrection through?

When is it coming out? - I was assuming it was out.
FWIW, it has a galaxy of atheist thinkers.

It may be a must read for all infidels - like Mao Tse Tung's book - cant remember its title - during 'the revolution'.

Ted Hoffman

Hi Neil, welcome to IIDB. Feedback you will get. I will read this new draft and see what I can contribute now that I have an idea about the arguments.
Be sure to take a look at other ongoing threads too. We have lots of interesting discussions going on that you may find relevant to your thesis.

Jacob