Vorkosigan

That's not my view. Mark made it up; it is characteristic of him to invent out of the Elijah-Elisha narrative. Here's the NIV.

15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'[3] ? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'[4] "
18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19When evening came, they[5] went out of the city.

Markan redactional elements are obvious in "On reaching Jerusalem" (v15) and v18 (the conspiracy and crowd amazement) and v19. The whole passage is vintage laconic Mark. "Overturning the tables" and "not permitting vessels to be carried out of the courts" are taken from Nehemiah. These two details would not be transmitted by oral tradition; they exhibit clear literary dependence. Hence, the writer of Mark had to have added them via Midrashic construction. Jesus' words cite two different OT authors and cannot be oral transmission; they exhibit literary dependence. The use of the Elijah-Elisha narrative for both the plot of the current set of pericopes and the overall framework of Mark is another example of literary dependence that could not have been transmitted. The entire "event" smacks on either Markan redaction or literary dependence on every level; every part of it can be shown to be OT-derived. Hence, it cannot have been transmitted, and must have been invented by the writer of Mark.

I do not date Thomas prior to Mark, but after it. I consider Mark to be the first gospel, on which all others depend one way or another.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Why should it be? The Temple incident is the final trigger. That doesn't mean it will show up in the list of charges.

Mark 11:18

18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

Clearly Jesus' words at the Temple inspired the authorities to "look for a way to kill him," at least according to Mark. That does seem at odds with your comment that the Temple Ruckus plays little or no role in the story.

Vorkosigan

DAMN!!!! Sorry, Rick! I accidently hit EDIT instead of QUOTE! My deepest apologies.

Vinnie

Mark is dependent upon Th0omas

Toto

The trial is probably borrowed from a different source. The fact that it is never mentioned argues against the historicity of both parts of the story.

Rick Sumner

I'll ignore the ad hominem in this, express my optimism that we can continue more appropriately in the future, and simply observe that the dilemma we are running into is precisely the one I expected to run into: We are viewing the gospels in entirely different frameworks--I am convinced there is history behind the gospels, and you aren't. Thus, from my end, it follows reasonably that if no one would make it up, that's because it's true. From your end it doesn't.

Hence my earlier stated concern regarding the potential for a slide down a slippery slope to a Jesus-Myth thread.

More after I read Brodie's argument. Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion as to how "certain" I am of the event, the pink bead is, in the vernacular of the Jesus Seminar "That sounds like Jesus," contrasted with the red "That's Jesus!" The "temple tantrum," as I've noted, is not integral to my reconstruction, I'm certainly amenable to changing my position on the matter, and have done so several times to date. If Brodie's case on the Elijah-Elisha argument is reasonably strong, then I will probably do so again.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

No ad hom was intended. So far your sole objection seems to be that "Mark wouldn't have made it up." We have asked several times for some kind of viable positive idea that there was history in it. Motive is not a relevant consideration where positive evidence exists.

Our respective frameworks are not relevant, Rick. I have already shown, in great detail now, how each detail of that story is dependent on a literary source. That dependency exists regardless of what position you ultimately take on the possibility of a historical kernel for the Temple Ruckus. The existence of literary dependency is a strong indicator of fictionality. I am willing to be convinced that there is an underlying historical kernel, but asking rhetorical questions that amount to "Why would Mark make this up?" is not what anyone would call a convincing approach. From my angle your position appears to be some kind of axiomatic pre-suppositionalist belief that there is history behind this story, without any underlying framework of evidentiary support.

Yet here were are, 45 posts later, and the only one talking about the Jesus Myth is you. The rest of us have confined our points to the pericope in question.

Thanks! All I ask is a fair hearing. Here is a chart of the origins of the pericope that might clear things up a bit:



Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I suggest reading Meier's treatment of this passage: PP. 380-382 of v.1 of Marginal.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

What, specifically, convinces you there is history behind this particular story?

Why do you continue to assume that "no one would make it up" when a pretty obvious motivation to create the scene is an integral part of the story and the HB sources are apparent?

Vinnie

because people a) appealed to Jesus stories that served their purposes and b) created details and or stories themselves that served their purposes. That they found the material useful does not mean they created it. It makes us suspicious of it.

But one could almost say that anything that survived in the record was kept for a reason as the church retained what was useful to it or what it had too//was simply factually embedded tradition.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

Re-read my post. Am I continuing to "assume" anything of the sort in the post you were responding to?

Isn't that post explaining the method, rather than defending the position? Does that post, in fact, not make it clear that I will need to re-evaluate the evidence before I tender a, possibly new, conclusion?

And if that is, in fact, what that post is doing, isn't your response somewhere between a strawman and polemic? Maybe a little of both?

Regards,
Rick Sumner