Peter Kirby

I will now answer my own questions.

--- In JesusMysteries@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kirby <kirby@e...> wrote:

> 1. John was arrested. What's the origin?

The combined witness of Mark and Josephus has convinced most critics. According to H. St. J. Thackeray (_Josephus: The Man and the Historian_, p. 132), the 163-word section is entirely in the style and vocabulary of Josephus. As I previously noted, the passage is an unlikely interpolation for a Christian and a motive-less move for a Jew or a Roman. It is fanciful, I submitted, to imagine that a disciple of the Baptist corrupted the manuscript of Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47) and all extant Christian-preserved manuscripts. At the time that I made my previous post, I was unaware that someone had suggested exactly that.

Zindler indeed suggests that most if not all of the references to John the Baptist in the Gospel of Mark are interpolated. He begins with Mark 1:2-14a, saying "It is hard to believe that 'Mark' could have assumed his readers would already know the tale of the imprisonment and execution of the Baptist." (_The Jesus the Jews Never Knew_, p. 90) Not hard at all if John the Baptist was actually imprisoned and executed.

Zindler goes on, "Also, there is the further peculiarity that after we have already been told (v. 9) that 'Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee,' only five verses later we are told that 'Jesus came into Galilee.' This has forced apologists to draw the implausible inference that 'the wilderness' in which Jesus contested with Satan was not in Galilee." (p. 91) The characterization of all who disagree with Zindler as "apologists" is discouraging. I could point to the reference to John drawing people from the Judean countryside for baptism (1:5) for the plausibility that the author of Mark thought of the wilderness into which Jesus was driven after the baptism as being in the environs of Judea. Or, if John was instead baptizing along the Jordan touching Galilee, Jesus could have gone into the desert area on the east side of the river. Zindler extends the polemic, "But this attempt to save the story only heightens the incongruity: Why doesn't the Greek text say that Jesus 'came _back_ into Galilee'?" (p. 91) The word for "came" (from ERCOMAI) is used generically by Mark for movement without prejudice as to whether it is a second or subsequent visit. In Mark 6:1, Jesus "came to his own country," in which Jesus presumably had been before. In Mark 9:33, they "came to Capernaum," where they had resided before (1:21, 2:1). In Mark 8:22, they "arrived at Bethsaida," where the disciples and implicitly Jesus had been before (6:45). The possibility is there to use the language "came again" (i.e. returned), but the absence of the phrasing "came _back_" does not have the same exclusionary force for Mark as it might have in English to Zindler. (If one feels the need to read some significance into the wording, one could appeal to the idea that Jesus gained a new authority or even identity at the epiphany, and this, in the mind of Mark, made him some kind of new being when arriving on the scene in Galilee--but this isn't necessary. Somewhat more likely is that 1:14 uses language to emphasize the fulfillment of 1:7 about the one "coming after" John. Or we could be reading too much into the phrasing.)

Frank Zindler writes: "Further support for the notion that verses 2-13 are not original with Mark is obtained from verse 9--the only mention of Nazareth in the Greek text of that gospel. In that verse, contrary to the general usage of Mark, the name Jesus is 'inarticulate' in the earliest Greek manuscripts, i.e., it is not preceded by the definite article. Normally, Mark refers to Jesus as hO IHSOUS--'the Jesus' (i.e., 'the Savior'). It would appear that the verse was written by someone from a time a time at which it had already been forgotten that 'Jesus' was not a name, but a title." (p. 91) Zindler does not mention that the definite article in Greek commonly accompanies a proper name in the nominative case. Thus we find hO hHRWDHS in Mark 6:16 and 6:17, hO IWANNHS in Mark 6:18, hO PETROS in Mark 8:29 and Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21 and Mark 14:29, hO IWANNHS in Mark 9:38, hO PILATOS in Mark 15:2 and Mark 15:4 and Mark 15:44, and hH MARIA in Mark 15:47. The simplest reason for the anarthrous construction in Mark 1:9 may be that it is the first appearance of the name Jesus, while the definite article often assumes a previous reference to the noun, which is being reused. Another explanation is that the name Jesus is being specified as "Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee" (or perhaps "Jesus from Galilee," IHSOUS APO GALILAIAS). The article is similarly omitted in Mark 10:47, a reference to "Jesus the Nazarene" (IHSOUS hO NAZARHNOS). Later writers such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria continue to use the definite article (naturally) before the name of Jesus, disconfirming Zindler's hypothesis that the article was dropped when the titular nature of "Jesus" was forgotten. (Indeed, there was a word in Greek for savior, SWTER, which is popular as the identification of Jesus in such texts as P. Oxy. 840 and the Gospel of Mary.)

Zindler writes: "It is a widely held opinion that John the Baptist was not present in the oldest stratum of the 'sayings gospel' generally referred to as Q (from the German Quelle, 'spring' or 'source'). It would appear then that after the Baptist had found his way into Q, he was inserted into Mark as well for political reasons that had developed." (p. 91) Zindler underestimates the degree of skepticism concerning the stratification of Q even among proponents of 2SH; Meier and Tuckett are two representative scholars who eschew the Q1, Q2, Q3 business. Even on the assumption that there are literary layers to Q, not much can be drawn from the further assumption that John the Baptist is only in the secondary layer, as John the Baptist can only be certainly found in any layer of Q in one pericope, Q//Luke 7:18-25. Kloppenborg, the grand old man of Q stratification, would not support the notion that John the Baptist was spliced wholesale into Q for the political purpose of subordinating him to Jesus. The passage is itself layered, according to Kloppenborg: "Thus the earliest components of the cluster are 7:18-23 and 7:24-26, the first a rather neutral, the second a positive assessment of John's role. Q 7:28 restricted the surprisingly high estimate of John given in 7:26b, but both 7:27 and 7:31-35--the latest additions from a literary point of view--treat John as a friend of the kingdom. John now stands at the dawning of the kingdom (7:27; also 16:16); as in 3:16-17 he is the herald of the one to come and like Jesus comes with a message of repentance and judgment. Despite the acknowledged differences between the Baptist and Jesus, both are messengers of Sophia. Both stand together against an unresponsive Israel. Both suffer rejection and violence at the hands of 'this generation.'" (_The Formation of Q_, p. 117) The core of the John the Baptist pericope in Q, as identified by Kloppenborg, is positively irenic, and even the final form of the Q passage concerning Jesus and John isn't the stuff of hostile polemics.

Zindler writes of the Mark 6:14-29 passage: "Perhaps because this pericope is so long and entertaining, its intrusiveness in Mark's narrative is not normally noted. But as with our previous interpolation, here again the verse preceding the story leads perfectly into the verse following it." (p. 93) But Zindler fails to note that the literary device of intercalation, placing an intervening narrative between two halves of a story, has long been recognized as characteristic of Mark. Francis J. Moloney writes on the meaning of the text as it stands: "Mark uses his traditions concerning the death of John the Baptist for at least two reasons. John the Baptist is the messenger of God (see 1:2-3), the one who announces Jesus (1:7-8). He has an unswerving commitment to his God-given mission: to preach a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (1:4). It has cost him his life (6:17-29). Second, his life and death have close parallels with the life and death of Jesus. Much information about discipleship has been provided for the reader in the narrative thus far (1:16-20; 2:13-14; 3:13-19, 20-35; 4:10-11, 33-34). The disciples have had a moment of weakness on the stormy sea (4:35-41), and there are hints of their inability to 'hear' in 4:13, 24-25. The reader is aware that unconditional commitment to God's design and being a follower of Jesus should mark the life of the Twelve, at present out on their mission (6:7-13). It is also made clear for the first time, by means of this interlude, that discipleship will cost no less than everything. As followers of Jesus, the disciples are called to share in the destiny of Jesus, proleptically acted out in the martyrdom of John the Baptist. 'John's martyrdom not only prefigured Jesus' death, it also prefigures the death of anyone who would come after him!'" (_The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary_, pp. 127-128) The fact that the story hangs together well enough in a characteristically Marcan way doesn't amount to proof of authenticity, but it does undermine Zindler's interpolation hypothesis.

Zindler writes: "If this passage is not an interpolation, is it possible that 'John' (not called _the Baptist_ in this passage) was inserted into an earlier saying that had nothing to do with the Baptist--the name _John_ being substituted for _scribes_? If verse 18 originally had the _disciples_ of the scribes and pharisees ask _Jesus_ a question, it would be the natural counterpart to verse 16 in which the _scribes and Pharisees_ ask the _disciples_ a question." (p. 94) This is a useless line of thought. If the text actually read, "And the disciples of the scribes and Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of the scribes and Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?" only then would the hypothesis rise to plausibility to this analogy of switched perspective (first scribes and Pharisees ask disciples of Jesus, then disciples of scribes and Pharisees ask Jesus). As a basis for amending what the text says--to an original text which would have hardly given rise to the thought of substituting John for the scribes--it is contrived at best.

Zindler then turns to the Mark 12:27-33 passage: "Once again, because of the loose structure of Mark's gospel, it is not possible to detect any obvious seams in the text. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that even if this passage should prove to be authentic, it does not in any way indicate that John had been on the scene mere months before this confrontation. Furthermore, the prophetic admission that 'all held that John was in fact a prophet' [NEB] would seem to imply that John was in fact an earlier worthy of the caliber of Elijah--someone about whom all could agree. Had John been a phenomenon of then-recent months, it is unlikely that so unanimous an opinion would have confronted the priests." On the contrary, this passage presupposes the tradition of Mark 1:7-8 with John's proclamation of the one to come, with the "Why then did you not believe him?" being a reference to the identity and authority of Jesus. If this passage was part of Mark, then so were the initial verses in which Jesus is clearly a contemporary of John. Also, the very idea that the prophethood of John was an open question for the elders shows that John had not acquired the hoary antiquity of the Old Testament prophets (which even the leaders would accept without question), but rather that John was a sort of *cause celebre*. As in all cases to say "all" is hyperbole, but not dishonest if close to the mark.

I will delay discussing Zindler's argument for the interpolation of Ant. 18.5.2 to the end of the next question.

> 2. Jesus proclaimed the good news only after John was arrested. What's the
> origin?

There is a problem here, as outlined by Robert H. Gundry: "Jesus' coming into Galilee after John was given over carries forward the fulfillment of John's prediction that a stronger one would come after him (v 7; cf. Acts 10:37). Mark's not telling how long after Jesus' temptation John was given over leaves room for concurrent ministries, as in John 3:22-24; 4:1-2. But the chronological placement of the call of the disciples reamains a problem, since in the fourth gospel they begin to follow Jesus while John is still free and active (John 1:35-4:2). To say that Jesus starts his ministry before John's beheading requires Mark 1:14 to refer to John's imprisonment and makes sense of his asking Jesus about that ministry during the imprisonment (Matt 11:2-3; Luke 7:18-19); but it makes nonsense of people's thinking that Jesus is John risen from the dead (6:14; 8:28; Matt 14:1-2; 16:14; Luke 9:7-9, 19), for they should very well understand that two men whom they knew as contemporaries in public life must be distinct from each other. And to say that Jesus does not start his ministry till after John's beheading would contradict Jesus' engaging in the ministry that John asked him about before losing his head." (_Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross_, p. 63)

If one wanted to take the concurrent ministries in the Gospel of John as historical, one would have to reject the statement of Mark that Jesus began to proclaim the good news after John was arrested. If the Q question from John in prison is historical, then John was imprisoned before the end of the ministry of Jesus; and if the Marcan motif of John redivivus goes back to contemporaries, then John was beheaded before the crucifixion of Jesus. However, if John was beheaded for criticism of the marriage of Antipas to Herodias, then John was beheaded after the crucifixion of Jesus, because Josephus implies that the impropriety with Herodias began no earlier than ca. 35 CE. This is evident from the fact that after the defeat of Antipas by Aretas, a battle sparked by the return of his estranged daughter, Vitellius was ordered to attack Aretas but stopped the march on hearing the news of the death of Tiberius in 37 CE. So we have a real chronological muddle if we try to take all our sources on John as being true.

The cleavage between Mark and Josephus is pointed out by Meier: "As we have seen, the story in Mark 6:17-29 is erroneous in key historical matters (i.e., the marital problem that set off the conflict with John, the place of John's imprisonment and execution, and perhaps the identity of the daughter) and is suffused with legendary and folkloric traits. Moreover, the links between the accounts of Mark and Josephus exist largely in the mind of the modern exegete. Mark knows nothing of political considerations leading to John's death; Josephus--although he, unlike Mark, presents John as a preacher of morality--knows nothing of a moral rebuke to Antipas. The absence of the motif of ethical rebuke in Josephus' account is all the stranger since Josephus seems to have had the apologetic intent of stressing John's purely moral and religious mission, to protect him from any charge of having revolutionary intentions. Furthermore, in Josephus the initiative to arrest and execute John comes from Antipas alone, while Herodias is the driving force in Mark's story." (_A Marginal Jew_, vol. 2, pp. 174-175)

There is one link between Josephus and Mark, that which explains how the legend developed into the form we see it in the Marcan Gospel. Josephus says that the Jews attributed the defeat of Antipas to the unjust execution of John. This would easily lead to a mid first century Palestinian rumor that John had been aligned with Aretas, with the corollary that John had disapproved of the marriage, something antecedently probable for the righteous prophet--if he had actually lived to hear about it (ca. 35-37), which I would say he didn't. Such chronological confusion could no doubt be paralleled in modern urban myths, and not too long after the facts for that matter. The rumor attracted to itself folkloric motifs of persecuted OT prophets and vengeful women at royal court, which were given immortal expression by the author of Mark.

If the legendary story in Mark 6:17-29 has it wrong about what prompted the execution of John, then that would explain why we have traditions in the synoptics that demand placing the execution of Jesus after that of the Baptist, specifically the question put to Jesus while John was imprisoned and the idea that Jesus was somehow John back from the dead. While these items would not therefore be historical, their historicity would not be ruled out from chronological considerations if John were executed ca. 28-30, contemporary with the ministry of Jesus.

Now, to address the question: is there evidence that the imprisonment of John happened after Jesus started preaching, thus contradicting Mark? It is hard to say that there is good evidence here. Meier argues from the Gospel of John (and from the embarrassed redaction of 4:2) that Jesus actually did perform baptisms after the model provided by John, drew disciples from the ambit of John's group, and might therefore be considered a sometime disciple of John. Even if this were the case, one could try to preserve the statement of Mark by saying that Jesus made his break for independence only when John was arrested. The reason that I consider it doubtful is that the author of Mark is probably taking the prediction of John about the one to "come after me" literally, as Gundry indicates, and subsequently presents this tidy narrative of Jesus' first day on the job (1:16-34).

Now, to pick up the hypothesis of Zindler concerning Ant. 18.5.2, he gives five reasons for regarding the passage to be an interpolation:

(1) "It is obvious that the Baptist material intrudes into its context."
(2) "Josephus thought Macherus pertained to Aretas" (referring to "Macherus, which was subject to her father" in Ant. 18.5.1).
(3) "Josephus gives his own--differing--view of why his god punished Herodias and Herod" (referring to 18.7.2).
(4) "Josephus does not mention the Baptist when discussing Herod in his earlier treatise, The Wars of the Jews."
(5) "John the Baptist is not mentioned in the ancient Greek table of contents."

(1) It's a good place to discuss John in the context of the belief that the defeat of Antipas was on account of his execution (which explains the rise of the Marcan legend as described above), and the digression is part of ancient history-writing, especially characteristic of Josephus.

(2) This is the best argument, and a response demands the view that John didn't criticize the marriage of Herodias but rather was executed over five years before. Josephus says that Macherus was on the border lands between Antipas and Aretas and that they were having land disputes prior to the war. Herod Antipas may have ceded control of the fortress to Aretas between 30 and 35 CE, perhaps when negotiating borders. Note that the Ant. 18.5.2 refers to the "castle I before mentioned," which can only refer back to the 18.5.1 paragraph mentioning Macherus, thus making it very difficult to accept that the author of Ant. 18.5.2 was ignorant of the statement in 18.5.1 that her father was using the castle at that (later) time.

(3) The reference in 18.7.2 is in regards to why Herod Antipas and Herodias lost the tetrarchy to their brother before the imperial court.

(4) Josephus does not mention a variety of historical people in the Wars that are described in the later Antiquities, which is generally more detailed on matters before the Jewish War. For example, Honi the Circle-Drawer and Theudas.

(5) Feldman holds that the table of contents was the work of a Jewish hand, thus one who would not necessarily take an interest in this digression on John.

The surest signs that author of Ant. 18.5.2 is Josephus, not the unorthodox Christian or pro-Baptist sectarian that Zindler proposes, are that (1) there is no legendary accretion in the account of the Antiquities and, in particular, no trace of the Palestinian folklore preserved by Mark, which would be known to any devotee of John or Jesus in the second century and (2) the passage betrays characteristic Greco-Roman concerns in portraying John not as a rustic prophet but as a moral philosopher with a baptism for the purification of the soul rather than forgiveness of sin and (3) the passage is in the characteristic vocabulary of Josephus and (4) the passage is quoted as early as Origen, where it is unlikely that the manuscript passed through generations of Christian scribes (much less Baptist followers). The attempt of Zindler to remove the Josephan passage on John is no more convincing than his protestations concerning the numerous references in the Gospel of Mark.

> 3. Jesus taught primarily in Galilee. What's the origin?

Burton Mack writes: "There is little evidence external to the gospel traditions that demands locating Jesus in Galilee. Critical inquiry into those traditions nonetheless leads to a firm scholarly consensus on this point. Many of these considerations have to do with the settings, topics, and patterns of behavior characteristic for the earliest layers of the several memory traditions about Jesus. Others have to do with the patterns of group formation that followed, most of which give some evidence of Galilean connections or provenance. That Jesus' family was Jewish is to be inferred from the concerns common to all group formations stemming from him, especially those that appealed to some family connection with him. All Jesus movements, it should be noted, sought to account for their novelty in terms of Jewish questions and answers drawn from epic prototypes. Jesus' Jewishness is, however, not self-evident from the nature of his discourse. His discourse reveals a remarkable openness to Hellenistic culture at a popular level, a stance that makes Galilean provenance quite plausible." (_A Myth of Innocence_, p. 63)

If we made the statement simply "Jesus taught in Galilee," there would be absolutely no contradicting evidence. With the idea that Jesus taught primarily in Galilee, we have to deal with the Johannine picture that places a substantial portion of the ministry in Judaea. If we made the statement "Jesus taught primarily in Palestine," again there wouldn't be any evidence against. It is difficult to weigh the evidence without looking closely at the Gospel of John, but a decision on this count should follow from an investigation of the individual stories set in particular locations, and where stuff that seems to be based in history is placed, as well as the generalized considerations offered by Mack. One interesting feature of the gospel tradition worth noticing is that there is no mention of Sepphoris or Tiberias, the two largest and most Hellenistic cities of Galilee that would come to the fore of the mind of any foreigner. This lends probability to a historical figure who avoided the big cities of Galilee as a source of gospel traditions.

> 4. Jesus preaches that "the kingdom of God is at hand" as a central part of
> his message (or "gospel"). What's the origin?

Being a programmatic summary from the evangelist, this verse on Mark can't really be used to say one thing or the other about pre-existing traditions. A judgment would have to be made on other grounds.

> 5. Simon, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen on the Sea of Galilee.
> What's the origin?

There's no evidence against it.

> 6. Jesus called these fishermen first to be his disciples. What's the
> origin?

As the Fellows say, "No one believes that the call of Simon and Andrew happened exactly as Mark depicts it." Or, at least, I don't.

> 7. Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaum. What's the origin?
>
> 8. Jesus exorcised a man possessed with an unclean spirit at the synagogue at
> Capernaum with the power of his rebuke. What's the origin?

This pericope is a stereotypic expression of the pre-Marcan tradition of Jesus as exorcist, as indicated in the quotes already given.

> 9. The unclean spirit recognizes Jesus as the Holy One of God, and Jesus
> commands the demon to be silent. (Also, Jesus later did not permit the
> demons to speak, for they knew him.) What's the origin?

W. R. Telford writes on the secrecy motif: "If Jesus had actually given his disciples teaching on the true nature of his Messiahship, why are they presented by Mark as repeatedly misunderstanding him (e.g. 10.35-45)? If the disciples, moreover, had actually been told of his imminent death and resurrection in advance (8.31; 9.31; 10.33-4), why were they taken by surprise, despite these repeated warnings. Viewed historically, their conduct is incomrehensible, if not reprehensible. Likewise, viewed historically, the injunctions to secrecy are quite implausible. How could secrecy be plausibly enjoined if demons are shown as shouting out who Jesus is? How could the cures performed be reasonably expected to have been kept a secret (particularly the raising of Jairus' daughter! 5.43)? Indeed, the evangelist informs us that the injunction to secrecy was often broken despite stern warnings against disclosure (1.45; 7.36)? Why too are there apparent discrepancies in Jesus' behaviour? In some cases of exorcism or healing, no injunction to secrecy is given (e.g. 2.1-12; 3.1-6; 5.6-8). On one occasion the opposite is the case and disclosure is commanded (5.19-20). How is this selective policy to be explained historically? Where Messianic self-disclosure is concerned, it is noteworthy that no secrecy appears to surround the Markan Jesus' open and public use of the term 'Son of Man' in 2.10 and 2.28 (see also 8.38) nor in his confession before the High Priest in 14.61-62. ... The secrecy motif, then, despite its continuing problems, is better understood at the literary or theological level than at the historical one, and this is borne out by the fact that in the majority of cases where it appears (and especially in the injunctions which are explicitly Christological), it is found in redactional passages (1.34; 3.11-12; 8.30; 9.9; 14.62)." (_The Theology of the Gospel of Mark_, p. 46)

Telford concludes: "The conclusion that I have been increasingly drawn to, therefore, the more that I have studied this Gospel, is that the author of Mark's Gospel writes as a representative of a Pauline-influenced Gentile Christianity which viewed Jesus (and, by means of the secrecy motif, invites the reader to view him) as the divine 'Son of God' who came to suffer and die on the cross. This Christology is in tension both with Jewish estimates of Jesus (teacher, prophet and healer) as well as Jewish-Christian ones. The latter emphasized (in keeping with Jewish monotheism) not his divinity (nor his cross?) but rather his triumphant status as the Jewish Messiah, either as the earthly Son of David or as one who, having been exalted to heaven, would return victoriously as God's eschatological agent, the apocalyptic Son of Man. Because of its political and nationalistic overtones, Mark has rejected the first but given a qualified acceptance to the second, perhaps, I suggest, because of its transcendent overtones." (ibid., p. 53)

> 10. Jesus was famous throughout Galilee in the area around Capernaum. What's
> the origin?

Jesus was not so famous as to draw the wrath of Herod, at least at first, but his name would have spread around like that of a new punk band.

> 11. Peter had a mother-in-law, who dwelt in Capernaum. What's the origin?

Here are the passages that we are looking at.

Mark 1:29-31. On leaving the synagogue he entered the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John. Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever. They immediately told him about her. He approached, grasped her hand, and helped her up. Then the fever left her and she waited on them.

1 Corinthians 9:3-6. My defense against those who would pass judgment on me is this. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only myself and Barnabas who do not have the right to work?

The indication that Peter is married, the one trait in common, is so slight and incidental in each case that it is a non-starter to hypothesize that one passage was constructed based on the other--regardless of whether one author may have actually heard of the other (and I think it likely that Mark had heard of Paul and his ideas, *perhaps* even hearing readings from a letter or two). Since the datum is rather pedestrian anyway--i.e., that Peter had a wife--it is rational to accept it as factual. That his mother-in-law resided in Capernaum is the only evidence we have.

> 12. The fever left Simon's mother-in-law with the touch of Jesus. What's the
> origin?

There is no evidence against it.

> 13. Jesus healed many who were sick and cast out many demons in the city of
> Capernaum. What's the origin?

The way that Mark tells it, as the conclusion of the first day of preaching in Galilee, is the author's construction.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I posted this to JM too...

Peter writes:

>5. Simon, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen on
>the Sea of Galilee. What's the origin?
>There's no evidence against it.

Peter, I think this conclusion strikes to the heart of the problem. "There is no evidence against it" presumes a default conclusion of historicity, which is, I think, a bit of apologetic bias built into NT historical thinking. I think, given that we are looking at a document which is a theological fiction-construction, "there is no evidence against it" cannot sustain an argument to historicity. The default position must be that until strong evidence *postively* confirms historicity, events must be considered fiction. There is no evidence that Rhett Butler was not jailed after the Civil War, but no one would consider that an argument for the historicity of that event.

Second, I did, in fact, present evidence against it. To wit, the passage from Jeremiah in which people become "fishers of men." This incident is a bit of OT 'midrashic' construction.

>Since the datum is rather pedestrian anyway--i.e.,
>that Peter had a wife--it is rational to accept it as factual.

Ah! The Criterion of Pedestrianality! Peter, you've discovered a new criterion! Seriously, the *datum* is that Peter had a mother-in-law. The *deduction* is that he had a wife (the text does not mention a wife, a key point I will return to in a moment). Peter's mother-in-law is, like other familial relationships in the gospels, simply a ghostly fiction. She serves as the vehicle for a miracle.

>That his mother-in-law resided in Capernaum
> is the only evidence we have.

The mother-in-law is a fiction. In Mark 10, Peter protests that they have left everything for Jesus. Jesus then rebukes him by saying that those who follow him give up parents and sibs, but there is no mention of spouses by either Jesus or Peter (yet Jesus knows Peter's mother-in-law personally, according to Mark 1). Even more telling is that Mark 10 is the chapter where divorce is discussed, and of the seven mentions of "wife" in Mark two are right nearby. In point of fact, except for the mention of Herod's wife in Mark 6, all the mentions of wives in Mark are abstractions referring to legal issues (Herod's too, in a way). Nobody has a real wife; the author does not concieve of wives as real beings who might impinge on the story as actors rather than recipients of action in the abstract. Therefore, I consider the mention of the mother-in-law to be fiction.

> 12. The fever left Simon's mother-in-law with
> the touch of Jesus. What's the origin?

> There is no evidence against it.

It is fiction construction.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

--- In JesusMysteries@yahoogroups.com, "turton" <turton@e...> wrote:
> Peter writes:
>
> >5. Simon, Andrew, James, and John were fishermen on
> >the Sea of Galilee. What's the origin?
> >There's no evidence against it.
>
> Peter, I think this conclusion strikes to
> the heart of the problem. "There is no
> evidence against it" presumes a default
> conclusion of historicity, which is, I
> think, a bit of apologetic bias built
> into NT historical thinking. I think,
> given that we are looking at a document
> which is a theological fiction-construction,
> "there is no evidence against it" cannot
> sustain an argument to historicity.

Rod Green adds: "I agree with Michael's position that you are setting up a default position that is based upon implied starting assumptions. I wouldn't go so far as to call this position apologetic, but it begs the question again, what is the purpose of the exercise? If we are pealing the onion, so to speak, and this is simply the first pealing, your methodology is conservative but coherent (we'll start with what can be positively dismissed, and then proceed later to those items that have no positive proofs against). However, if this is a single wave of categorization, then you have inserted a default position of authenticity. Clarifying your purpose may prevent others from peremptorily disputing your analysis."

Rod Green asks the right question: where am I going with these efforts? What I am trying to do is figure out which stories have evidence against them, i.e., which ones look like they were made up by Mark or by an earlier tradent. I am not assuming that everything that isn't disproven is historical. I am trying to weed out the manifestly unhistorical, so that we can later go on to discuss that material that is left, that which *may* or *may not* be historical. As I say in the prologue, "The idea is that we might show that it's mostly made up, or that we might clarify which portraits of historical antecedents for the story make sense, but in any case we will learn more about the texts and the arguments surrounding them." The metaphor of peeling an onion is a good one, except that I am trying not to assume that we will end up with a single coherent core. We might find, say, that there are a minimum of three people from which the plausible stories have been culled. Or whatever. "No evidence against" is not a final verdict in favor of a HJ; it is part of the preliminary investigation.

> The default position must be that until strong
> evidence *postively* confirms historicity,
> events must be considered fiction.

What forms could such positive confirmation take?

I would like your comment on this earlier statement: "And, there is an airtight case for not taking up the opposite debate [[i.e., is it provably true?]] here if anti-methodologists are right. If there is absolutely no way to identify a historical bit in a source that is error-prone (without external evidence--which already dismisses the source), then a discussion of 'is this pericope provable truth?' is an absolute zero--again, if the anti-HJ-methodology criticism is correct."

It seems to me that an approach of assuming fiction until we find positive confirmation presumes that there are some methods of finding positive confirmation of historicity for items in errant documents (without appealing to some external 'good source').

> Second, I did, in fact, present evidence
> against it. To wit, the passage from Jeremiah
> in which people become "fishers of men." This
> incident is a bit of OT 'midrashic' construction.

Jeremiah says, "Look! I will send many fishermen, says the Lord, to catch them. After that, I will send many hunters to hunt them out from every mountain and hill and from the clefts of the rocks. For my eyes are upon all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor does their guilt escape from my view. I will at once repay them double for their crime and their sin of profaning my land with their detestable corpses of idols, and filling my heritage with their abominations." (16:16-18)

It is not obvious to me that the Marcan passage is built out of this one, not least because the fishermen and hunters are sent out to punish evil-doers in Jeremiah.

> >Since the datum is rather pedestrian anyway--i.e.,
> >that Peter had a wife--it is rational to accept it as factual.
>
> Ah! The Criterion of Pedestrianality! Peter,
> you've discovered a new criterion!

Along with the combined attestation of the Marcan story and the passing mention in Paul, there is a good background probability that any mature Palestinian male had a wife.

> Seriously, the *datum* is that Peter had a
> mother-in-law. The *deduction* is that he
> had a wife (the text does not mention a wife).
> Peter's mother-in-law is, like other familial
> relationships in the gospels, simply a ghostly
> fiction. She serves as the vehicle for a miracle.
>
> >That his mother-in-law resided in Capernaum
> > is the only evidence we have.
>
> The mother-in-law is a fiction. In Mark 10,
> Peter protests that they have left everything
> for Jesus. Jesus then rebukes him by saying
> that those who follow him give up parents
> and sibs, but there is no mention of spouses
> by either Jesus or Peter (yet Jesus knows
> Peter's mother-in-law personally, according
> to Mark 1). Even more telling is that Mark 10
> is the chapter where divorce is discussed, and
> of the seven mentions of "wife" in Mark two are
> right nearby. In point of fact, except for the
> mention of Herod's wife in Mark 6, all the
> mentions of wives in Mark are abstractions
> referring to legal issues (Herod's too, in a
> way). Nobody has a real wife; the author does
> not concieve of wives as real beings who might
> impinge on the story as actors rather than
> recipients of action in the abstract. Therefore,
> I consider the mention of the mother-in-law to be
> fiction.

It would be a characteristic male bias in antiquity to treat wives as merely recipients of action, when mentioned at all, rather than actors in their own right, which is not evidence that there were actually no wives in the ancient Mediterranean.

best,
Peter Kirby