TedM

She could have suggested it to Herod...Or Herod could have been drunk..or Herod may have offered something and in the retelling it got exagerrated..who knows? The problem with OT influence on the literary invention theory is that there is so much info one could use to see a connection to just about any event, yet there are many events that seem to have little if any OT influence--often it appears that the OT influence theory is primarily supported only if one sees GMark as some giant mysterious puzzle full of obtuse clues. Considering a culture that was OT obsessed, it is not unexpected that there would be some influences and that some would have very close details. For one to conclude that it is the invention of the writer and not actual events inspired/affected by OT influence requires telltale signs, such as chiasms or OT quotes about events no one would have witnessed (ie Mark's imagination had to fill in the blanks).
I've seen a few that might qualify, but would be interested in a top 10 from you.

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
"Luke" coming after "Matthew" is even more interested in trying to harmonize "Mark" with recorded History. With Apologies to Stephen Carlson, "Luke" clearly dates Jesus' supposed birth to 6 CE utiliezing a famous Temporal landMark by Josephus, the Infamous Quirinius' census. Thus, when "Luke's" Jesus is around 30, the year is around 36 CE and now "Luke's" report concerning the supposed demise of one JTB, to use the words of the Famous
Richard Carrier, "dovetails nicely with Josephus' report that John could have been killed around then". (gotta love the use of "dovetail" here). Thereby "Luke" uses another Temporal landmark from Josephus, the Herod Tetrach defeat, to date the End Time of The Ministry.

And what does the Objective Reader learn from all this? That "Luke" considered Josephus real History that "Mark" needed to be reconciled with rather than Verse Vices.

Christians like TedM need to explain why they think "Mark" is accurate History when "Luke" didn't.



Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

You have the resilience of a christian in your defence of the veracity of Mk, TedM, though without ever showing any reason for believing said veracity. I've pointed out that

1. the Herod Antipas & John the Baptist story is full of holes, showing that Mk is historically untrustworthy;
2. the language of Mk contains enough Latin indications to think that the text was written not in a Palestinian context but a Latin one; and
3. the geographical problems point to a non-Palestinian writing context and the writer lacked local knowledge.

Let me add another major problem when trying to contemplate that Mk contains some historical core for its main propositions. The passion story evinces a gross artificiality in the number of items which are in threes:

1. 3 disciples at Gethsemane; (14:32)
2. 3 prayers and 3 returns by Jesus in Gethsemane; (33-42)
3. 3 groups before the high priest, chief priests, elders and scribes; (14:53)
4. 3 times the high priest speaks in the council; (14:60-64)
5. 3 acts of violence against Jesus by those with the high priest, spitting at, blindfolding and striking him; (14:65)
6. 3 denials by Peter; (14:66-72)
7. 3 times Pilate speaks to the crowd; (15:9-14)
8. 3 acts by soldiers in the courtyard, they struck him, spat on him and knelt before him; (15:19)
9. 3 acts by the soldiers, they crucified him, divided his clothing and cast lots for them; (15:24)
10. 3 people were crucified; (15:25-27)
11. 3 rebukes, by passers-by, by the chief priests, and by those crucified; (15:29-32)
12. 3 times were reported during the progress of the crucifixion; (15:25, 33a, 33b)
13. 3 women watched from a distance(15:40)

All of these point to a literary creation for the telling rather than anything that actually happened.

Add to this the building of story through "prophecy" fulfilment, such as the dividing of clothes and the "eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani", or the one who loses the cape and runs away. (And I can add still others.)

What do you find left, besides wisdom teachings and the supernatural, eg the temptation and the transfiguration, and the miracles, what is there left in the glue that you could pin your hopes on as perhaps historical?


spin

TedM

Good questions. I would like for it to be at least somewhat historical, so I have an emotional bias. As for the 3's I think it is worth considering that the culture had a penchant for 3's and as such that could have influenced a number of the items you listed. Any analysis of 3's needs to take that into account as well as needs to analyze the number of occurances of other numbers also...
As for your other items, I don't see the existence of inaccuracies as proof of fiction--only of carelessness or naivety on the part of the writer. I like the idea that the writer could have been a companion of Peter, though careless and/or naive. It is not clear to me whether the arguments put forth against the trustworthiness of Mark are strong enough to refute that idea or to support the idea that Mark was inventing or as Vork has suggested was a literary genius.

ted

Malachi151

TedM:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/temp/matthew_15.htm

And I should note that I have since learned of even more parallels between other OT texts and this one segment of the gospel story.

As I state in my presentation on the historicity of Jesus:

And this is really just a small list.

The reality is that pretty much every detail of the "life of Jesus" according to the gospels can be shown to have been lifted from the "Old Testament", other Hebrew scriptures not currently found in the Bible, and potentially from other texts which the writers of the gospels would have either had direct access to as texts in Greek, or at least they could have heard of because they are story elements that were known to have been present in that place and time.

By far, though, the biggest thing is the direct quotes and allusions to the "OT" texts.

So, let's look at the story of Jesus in relation to OT texts:

Mary and Joseph fled from Egypt? Based on OT.
Jesus born in Bethlehem? Based on OT.
Herod massacre of the innocents? Based on OT.
Jesus preached in Galilee? Based on OT.
Jesus was a healer who was rejected by his community but scarified himself to save the world? Based on OT.
Jesus rode into town on a ass while the people hailed him as king of the Jews? Based on OT.
Jesus was pierced and fluid came souring out of him? Based on OT.
Jesus' bones weren't broken, but the bones o the thieves were? Based on OT.
Jesus was given vinegar to drink on the cross? Based on OT.
Jesus comforts women at well and tells her things about her? Based on OT.
Jesus gives "Sermon on the Mount"? Based on OT.
Jesus throw merchants out of the temple? Based on OT.

etc., we can go on.

The only answers to all this are:

1) Jesus really did these things and fulfilled hundreds of prophecies in the OT.
2) The story of Jesus is crafted from OT texts.

The problem with #1 is that a) most of the parallels between the OT and the story of Jesus aren't even from OT prophecies, they are just from songs or parts of other stories. b) even if they were prophecies, the most reasonable explanation is still that the writers of the gospels simply used them as the basis for their story. c) we don't really have any info about Jesus that tells us something reasonable that doesn't seem to come from either the OT, other mythical constructs (such as the 12 apostles (12 signs of zodiac, 12 tribes of Israel, 12 Hebrew prophets)), or that isn't just outright fantastic, such as walking on water, raising the dead, etc.

Once you take away what is clearly pulled from the OT, what is based on other regional mythic motifs (12 apostles, etc.), and the fantastic stuff, there isn't anything left except: "He........ the......... a.......... is.......... when.........", etc.

TedM

Jesus very well could have done SOME of those things to intentionally fulfill the OT...

I don't think that is anywhere near true unless you think it is appropriate to completely cross of entire stories such as blind man healings simply because they contain 'fantastic stuff' or because of one verse in the OT. I'm curious--what would you want to see in a story about a man who the writer considered to have been the Messiah, who had been a travelling preacher/healer with disciples, who was crucified after a few years--that isn't there? And what about all of those parables--where is the OT influence in them? It is entirely possible that there were a few similarities of a real Jesus to some verses considered to apply to the expected Messiah, and that fact did result in some additional stories made up from the OT, but that doesn't mean they all were.

ted

spin

"SOME"? That's not good enough, is it TedM?

But let's get past the "could haves" and ask you once again for something substantive, to offset the non-historical elements in the gospel of Mark. If we have a writer who has a Latin background, who doesn't know the geography, who gets historical information plain wrong, who shows that the writing style is not historical, and who uses narrative elements that reflect Hebrew bible materials, we have an undateable non-local who shows no interest in writing historical information. Why do you try to save elements from the text as reflective of a figure acting in history? How do you choose which elements?


spin

TedM

Mark's Jesus has a lot in common with Paul's Jesus, and there is not strong evidence IMO--yes I am aware of Vork's arguments, that Mark knew what Paul had written about Jesus.

All that means is that he wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean he was deliberately inventing anything. He may have just been careless. It is a big jump to go from careless to intentional fictionalizing.

Because to me the idea of Mark totally inventing the entire story is ludicrous. Vork believes it, but he also believes that GMark was the greatest piece of literature ever written. IF Mark was writing a 'play' as some have suggested, there is no clue within the material that he was doing so. It reads more to me like he was writing about a person he believed lived.

I don't know. Contemporary comparisons with Paul and the other gospels might be helpful but it is all subjective due to the inherent biases of the authors..

ted

spin

It's logical, isn't it? Before you make your argument of separate witnesses here you have to demonstrate the relationship between Paul and Mk. I don't think you can, but I'd be happy to see you try.

Perhaps the writer of Goldilocks and the three bears "wasn't writing accurate historical information. This doesn't mean [s/]he was deliberately inventing anything." Oh, bears don't speak or live in houses, but the writer "may have just been careless." I suppose that this will be taken as an inappropriate comparison because there is no historical window-dressing in the Goldilocks narrative, but is historical window-dressing an issue? If so, there's surely more such historical window-dressing in the Satyricon.

The Goldilocks narrative displays the same type of formalised structuring as the passion narrative regarding its discursive use of repetitive three items, though it is simpler and less manifest.

I'll allow you to make the jump, if you like. I simply require you to show that there actually is something historical in the core presentation of the gospel narrative, while I show you all the elements that point against the trustworthiness of the source. Whatever Mk is, you need to show that it is.

This doesn't really answer my question at all. I'm not interested in who may or may not have "invented" what. That's an ulterior step in the analysis of the problem. My question was about what makes you think that there are elements reflective of history.

What the writer of Mk believed is a matter of clairvoyance. This issue is not too difficult, TedM. Which elements of the text do you find reflective of a figure acting in history?

So you just believe that it's just possible that some of the elements just might be reflective of history, but which elements you just don't know.

You haven't really given me any idea of why you think that any of the elements of Mk are reflective of a figure acting in history.


spin

TedM

Why do I have to demonstrate that? Paul doesn't mention Mark and Mark doesn't mention Paul, yet they both mention a number of similarities about this person Jesus.


The writer of Goldilock had no need to clarify that he was writing fiction. The writer of Mark had a much greater need, since he was writing about a being that was highly venerated by at least SOME prior to his writing.



How do you think that could be done?

The lack of any good argument for entire fiction.

I've already given you the fact of a number of similarities regarding Jesus found in Paul's writings. I also think the role of baptism in Christianity dovetails nicely with the JTB influence on Jesus. I think the early accounts in GJohn of Jesus' disciples initially including some former JTB disciples, and performing baptisms to be supportive. I think the unlikely indication of a mother and father and brothers and sisters of the Messiah--as well as their embarrassment of Jesus as supportive. I find the mention of James as a brother as supportive. I find the unusual closeness of the relationships and places of origins of the disciples to be supportive. I find the lack of witnesses of many of the miracles to be supportive. I find the placement of such a figure in a very recent historical timeframe to be very supportive. The early apparent universal acceptance of the crucifiction as fact is very supportive.. These are a few of the things..

ted