No Robots

That was his masterstroke, trusting those guys.

Isn't this just the prejudice of literate culture against oral culture?

Well, I kind of just want people to read Brunner. If they don't like him, that's fine. But I don't really mind spending time on Doherty, if only out of reciprocation for the time you have spent on Brunner.

Oh, yeah. Now I see. Markdidit. So let me address that. I have this pal who sends me email recounting his adventures. In one, he goes to a hotel for a kind of costume party. I can't print the whole thing, but here's how it ends:

Luckily next door there was a corporate party going on. As I was starving, I went in dressed in my Karate costume while everyone else was decked out in gowns and suits. I headed to the front of the buffet line, and took some sushi. One of the guys asked me my opinion of the sushi obviously thinking that I was an expert on the subject because of my Karate outfit. I muttered that it wasn't the real McCoy, but would have to do in a pinch.

I decided at one point that I had to pass on these emails to some other friends. I asked them what they thought, and they said, "This is BS. This guy isn't real. You made this up." I just said, "You know that I don't have that kind of talent."

The point is that the figure in the Gospels can't be made up. Not even Shakespeare comes close to creating such a figure. And, as Brunner says, it is ridiculous to think that the ammé haaretz invented something that no other literary artist comes close to. Now, you apparently think that you have got around this problem by saying markdidit, that there is some mysterious genius who put all this together. But this is heaping improbability upon improbability. Who is this genius? Why did he disguise his work to look like ammé haaretz midrash? Why, if he is genius enough to create this titanic figure, does he write everything down in a way that makes himself look like a complete numbskull?

This is a nice principle. However, the risk is always there that when you try on someone's theories, you may not be able to let them go. I think that it is precisely this risk that keeps many people from fully engaging with new ideas.

Genius has a tendency to spread, especially where there is fertile ground. The line from the genius Spinoza through Locke to the fathers of the United States is direct. Genius also tends to recognize genius. Thus Paul recognizes Christ. Brunner's whole thought basically comes down to the assertion that genius is really a community.

In the end you have rely on inner conviction. As Brunner says:

The Spirit can no more be "proved" than the genius. A person experiences the Spirit within him, and genius is experienced as Spirit: the Spirit cannot be demonstrated to those who are devoid of Spirit and genius cannot be proved to the critic.

Well, he surveys literature and finds nothing comparable to the authentic genius that he detects in Socrates, Christ and Spinoza.

Niall Armstrong

Ah, but say you were that genius, wouldn't you be a little bit worried about who you left your legacy with? Especially in an illiterate society! (Brunner would at least have the luxury of knowing that his writings wouldn't be garbled.) I for my part cannot imagine that anyone (That's a bit strong, but I'll let it go) would have believed in the possibility that the unlearned would transmit teaching best, before the advent of the printing press (when one would always have the written word to fall back on). There's a challenge to you, anyway

No. I've already shown you that Gerhardsson doesn't find any pre-gospel Jesus-tradition, so there is actually no trace of any such thing, but instead an opposing Christ-tradition. So why should we believe in a non-existent Jesus-tradition when we have the Epistles (at the time of the supposed Jesus-tradition) to rely on instead?

Nice story! I'm sure it gets better every time you tell it
I don't think Mark needed to have been such an exceptional genius. He did know the teachings of the Q community, he probably knew some of the Epistles, he might even have been exceptionally provoked by the Gospel of Thomas. And all this got him to write the rather short work known as the Gospel of Mark. In one sense I feel Mary Shelley created a more remarkable monster, failing despite his goodness, in her only acclaimed novel. And John Steinbeck portrays the amme haaretz of his time with greater tenderness and more understanding than Mark, despite himself being hardly of their class (See his introduction to Tortilla Flat for an enjoyable support of the HJ thesis as regards King Arthur.... )

Well, exactly. And life's too short.

Good! This is also what happens when religions erupt: Someone has a good idea, someone else catches its essence and passes it on, and another interprets it further from his position. But to gain authority, nothing beats hijacking the founder, and putting your thoughts in his mouth. Now if the founder is Paul, you get forged letters like Ephesians, Colossians and the Pastorals. If your founder is Orpheus you get Orphic hymns. If you wish to trump those pseudo-pauline Epistles, you might just try to hijack Christ.

Too bad! Makes it difficult to argue anything, doesn't it?

Well, half of Socrates' genius is of course Plato's. Though distinguishing the two is well nigh impossible. Socrates was probably a genius, but attributing the thoughts of the Republic to him doesn't make sense: His trial would have been very different if those democrats could also accuse if him of being an aristocratic, Sparta-loving underminer of the city-state.

No Robots

The Gospels are full of Christ's anxiety about the hearing of his message. He is outraged that the literate few refuse to listen to him. He has no choice but to rely on the ammé haaretz. And, in they end, they do of course come through.



Here is what you originally wrote:

I furnished evidence from Gerhardsson. You provide alternate explanations for that evidence. Even if I were to concede that the epistles provide no evidence of oral transmission of Gospel stories, which I do not, this would not mean that there is no evidence elsewhere, like in the structure and nature of the Gospels themselves. Your contortions over this originate in your premise that there is a Christ tradition upon which the Jesus stories have been grafted.

The point is that Mark doesn't even seem to understand what he himself has written down. And yet you expect us to believe that he invented Jesus?

Well, to each his own, but I doubt that anyone has willingly gone to his death out of love for Frankenstein's monster.

It is the love between Christ and the ammé haaretz that is the fulcrum of art and history, as Steinbeck well understood.

I suppose. But good fences make for good neighbors. I am hoping to awaken people to spiritual life. If I fail to do so with you, well, so be it. But I cannot remain silent. Look inside yourself to your inmost thought. What do you see? Can you believe that, by extension, whatever you see belongs to all and everything? This is spiritual thought. Did you hear Whitaker's speech last night?

Because when I first started acting, it was because of my desire to connect to everyone. To that thing inside each of us. That light that I believe exists in all of us. Because acting for me is about believing in that connection and it's a connection so strong, it's a connection so deep, that we feel it. And through our combined belief, we can create a new reality.

That is spiritual thought.

This may be a question that could be pursued at another time. Being that this is a thread about Brunner, I will simply say that he treats of both Socrates and Plato, as well as the relationship between them, in considerable detail.

Niall Armstrong

(My message has now been erased twice. Hopefully I’ll not let others suffer for my loss of patience) Coming back to this discussion, I wonder why we bother. We do seem to be light-years apart. But you deserve an answer, and I must not surrender my belief in you. :wave:

This is the end of a, for me, hypothetical scenario. I suppose I have to surrender, and say that given the situation of a Genius being stuck among the amme haaretz, one can imagine him or her attempting to teach them what one could. If it were me, though, I imagine I'd head for the closest polis, hang about at the agora when I could, and try to pick up on ongoing discussions.... Hey, isn't that what I'm doing here?


Ok. We’re not likely to see agree upon this. My contortions, as you put it, are based upon an historical interpretation.
But hoe would you separate fiction from non-fiction? As a disciple of Brunner I suppose that you regard the miracles to be fiction (or tricks, or misunderstandings), and the talk of divine status as at least wrong (or misinterpretation).The prayer in Gethsemane and the trial of Jesus, which no disciples witnessed, must be considered hypothetical reconstructions. How do you stand on the differences between the Gospels (such as whether Jesus wanted everyone to know of his miracles and divine state)?

Let’s stop harassing Mark! What is it he doesn’t understand?
And haven’t I already shown how he creatively manipulates the story so as to show the folly of the disciples (re. the second feeding of the multitude)? This literary craft, which we normally don’t recognize, shows that we should be careful about underestimating this man (or woman). Presupposing that Mark was a naïve author is a mistake of the same kind as imagining that Picasso painted the way he did because he was unable to paint figuratively.


Wouldn’t it be beautiful if they did! Imagine a religion based on Frank’s monster: what respect for science, but also what a critique against its hubris!
But my point with this was that an otherwise unknown author (echoes of Max Stirner) could create such a “perfect” creature, such an influential work upon today’s culture. Anachronisms aside, what is there to separate Mark (as a fiction writer) from Mary Shelley?

‘Tis beautiful, no doubt.
My point with Steinbeck was that an author can engage with the amme haaretz without being of them himself. And he can create seemingly naïve works with both great complexity and empathy. Anachronisms aside, what is there to separate Mark from Steinbeck?


My wife tries to awaken me to spirituality, and I’m not averse to all her suggestions. Different people do have different conceptions of what that spirituality actually is. But I agree that we need to focus more upon what unifies the “sphere of consciousness”. I do see that supporters of (secular) HJ theory might be more open for this than supporters of MJ theory, but truth (in the historical sense of “most probable”) can not be avoided, at least not by those blessed with curiosity.

Perhaps you can refer me to Brunner’s treatment of these?

No Robots

Thanks, man. I appreciate it.



Isn't that what he was doing there?

Niall Armstrong

Ah, but what was the closest polis? Sepphoris! And Jesus studiously avoids it. I used to think that he avoided it due to having spent some years there in his twenties, learning Q1, and not wanting his disciples to meet his own teachers. Jesus also goes to Gadara (or is it Gerasa.... ), where he studiously avoids entering the town. Now, of course, I see that the Q-community was oriented towards the amme haaretz of Gallilee.

I suppose you might say that Jesus was unwilling to engage gentiles (despite the SyroPhoenician woman), but wouldn't that detract from his Genius? If he had any wit in him he'd realise that his universalist teaching was made for the Greeks (if it wasn't made by the Greeks, that is), and that he in their cities would find willing converts, and a curious outset. Here were cities full of better disciples, and Jesus couldn't care less.

Btw, due to my ineptness, my previous post first came out rather mangled. It looks a little bit better now, I hope.

No Robots

Man, why don't you just order the book through abebooks? It's cheap! Brunner provides lavish comparison between the Gospels on all crucial points.

He seems confused about the whole "leaven of the Pharisees" (Mk 8:15-21). He starts to explain the parable, then starts talking about the multiplication of the loaves, then just drops it, seemingly because he himself didn't get it. The parable is clearly explained in Mt. 16:12. If Mark was writing this out of his own head, why would he screw up the exegesis of his own parable?

Simply this: there is no comparison between the cultural impact of Frankenstein's monster, or any other purely fictional personality, and Christ.

The point is that Mark is clearly of the ammé haaretz, or at least not far removed from them. There is conspicuous absence of any kind of literary polish, and even literary competence.

Quite so, quite so. And that is what we are exploring, no?

On p. 86 of Our Christ, Brunner mentions Plato's love of Socrates as an example of the consummate master-disciple relationship. Full treatment is given to Socrates in the article "Sokrates", which appeared in the compilation Kunst, Philosophie, Mystik. Plato is treated extensively in Materialismus und Idealismus. The Socrates article is available only in German. I do have a rough English version of Materialism and Idealism in my possession.

Well, Christ was a man, and thus prone to chauvinism and prejudice. But I wouldn't be so sanguine about his chances among the Greeks. After all, even the cosmopolitan Paul had his troubles with the goyim.

No Robots

So many places to take that. "Sure, baby, I'm on it. I just need you to do this one little thing for me first."

Well, that's why I study Christ: he seems to me to provide the most adequate conception of what spirituality actually is.


I was recently flipping through an old book called The Psychology and Ethics of Spinoza (1962) by David Bidney. He calls Spinoza the father of scientific psychology with his "spiritual determinism". Basically, Spinoza says that we can analyze reality as either purely material or purely ideal. In either case, the same mechanical laws apply. So, just as the material universe is a unified system of objects in motion, so is the sphere of consciousness a unified system of ideas in motion.

Yes, I see MJ as the endpoint of the anti-spiritual, absolutely materialistic worldview. That is why it fascinates me and why I spend so much time addressing it. It seems to me that those who embrace MJ are at the forefront of the movement away from the idols of the past. But they need help making that one last leap away from that one last idol: matter.

Niall Armstrong

I am actually dirt-poor. Being an academic doesn't pay much in Norway. It's our way of keeping in contact with the amme haaretz... More importantly, I'm trying to pry out your own principles. But I suppose the best way to do this is by attacking "equivalent cause" directly.
So I'll propose the opposite argument (from “The Jesus Puzzle”, p. 7):

"It is a natural human tendency to explain the development og progressive ideas, new technologies, better social and political systems, as the product of exceptional individuals, idealized forerunners, sometimes even as proceeding from divinities. The reality is typically otherwise. Society as a whole or a group within it produces the innovation or the swing in a new direction. There may be a trend ‘in the air’, a set of subtle processes taking place over time. Eventually, these developments become attached in the popular or sectarian mind to a famous figure in their past, or embodied in an entirely fictitious personality. History is full of invented founders for religious, social and national movements, such as Taoism’s Lao-Tse, Lycurgus of Sparta, or William Tell at the time of the founding of the Swiss Confederation. It is now generally recognized that these people, and others like them, never lived.

So if we oppose this to the brunnerian “definition” of EC, how do we choose between the two? Isn’t a single demonstration of one of these myths; how myths and sayings accumulate around a person, sufficient to demonstrate the falsity of EC?

Good example! I agree with your reading: Mark does seem confused. Or perhaps he expected his audience to fill in the blanks (And, personally, I don’t find Matt’s explanation sufficient. Why is teaching like yeast? He obviously expected the readers to fill in some of the blanks as well). But please remember that no MJ-theory states that the author of Mark composed in a vacuum. Indeed, AMark was writing based on tradition, not least the Q-tradition, but probably also others. What is unique and original is the particular combination of Q-tradition and (sub-)Pauline Jesus worship. AMark wasn’t writing out of the top of his head, but creating a unique synthesis. So “screwing up the exegesis of his own parable” is not surprising, as it isn’t his own parable. I can imagine a similar critique being more problematical if it attacked one of the central parables where the passion story is described or predicted (such as the allegory of the vineyard in GMark 12:1-12. Though please note that I in another thread am trying to grapple with the difficulty as regards the relation between GMark and GThomas and the “invention” of Jesus.)


So then you agree that as a literary piece of work, apart from any claims of truth, there is little to separate AMark from Mary Shelley? And that Equivalent Cause is the only argument left?

How so “clearly”? For my part I see AMark as a learned Q-disciple, fallen among Jesus-followers during his missionary work, and able to join these traditions by composing a little story in his second language (And as to literary competence, you still have not engaged with the argument regarding irony). Samuel Beckett was not of the amme haaretz despite writing French of the simplest kind. And, as I said, John Steinbeck could write wonderful stories about the amme haaretz (equal to or superior to GMark as to poignancy and humour) without himself being of the amme haaretz. So, again, why do you insist that AMark is of the amme haaretz?

Thanks! You don’t have any of this accessible on internet?

Chauvinism and prejudice. That’s at least a start. In our attempts to maintain the image of Jesus in the Gospels, which is of Genius, or the Perfect Man, it is inevitable that contradictions arise. Add intellectual cowardice, if you want an explanation why he (hypothetically) didn’t approach the Greeks. (And was Jesus really, while in Tyre and Sidon, only able to get into conversation with a single woman?) And is your estimation of Jesus’ Genius so low that you rank his chances among philosophers as lower than those of his follower? Paul, after all, doesn’t make use of the cynic-like ethical statements of Q. If Jesus had anything original to tell the world, wouldn’t he, like Menippus , a one-time slave from nearby Gadara, seek his fortune in Athens. No, Jesus had no reason to complain about his disciples.
But, from where I stand, this kind of analysis makes about as much sense as discussing Madame Bovary’s suicide.

Niall Armstrong

Aw! I thought you might have a better impression of my patience.

Interesting, but we’re getting a bit off track again, backing into something that belongs in a purely philosophical forum, not BC&H.
This was of course one of Hegel’s mistakes: considering that the material world was merely a reflection of the dialectic of the ideal world. This was the basis for the “end of history” argument. As ever, stating a thing does not make it true. The sphere of consciousness is not an isolated system, but one necessarily open towards, and influenced by, the material world. History is changing us, and old ideals need to be replaced by new models.

I think the anti-spiritual element is co-incidental. As Nietzsche said: we have to forget so as to be able to create. First there is deconstruction, then we are open for new syntheses. And despite historical hiccups, I believe the world is gaining in empathy, for sentient beings in general, which must be the basis for any spirituality of any worth.
But I do think MJ is severely opposed to one aspect of Idealism as found in Brunner and Hegel, and that is hero-worship. As Aldous Huxley said: “So long as men worship the Caesars and Napoleons, Caesars and Napoleons will duly arise and make them miserable.” This opposition is naturally secondary to the purely historical, investigative aspect of MJ. But in the long run it might be of great consequence. It would rid us of the holier-than-thou who emulate Jesus without trying to grasp the essence of ethics, which is found in acknowledging the Other. It would also liberate those subservient amme haaretz who surrender to self-proclaimed authority. And it would enable us to teach the coming generations morals free from superstition. A spiritual challenge, no doubt, but the future is no place for cowards.