Vinnie

Vork: Calm down, OK? I'm just trying to have a conversation here.

Like you do on TWeb? Running around complaining about conservative positions on dating and authorship that do not cohere with the communis opinio? Yet you come here and show you lack familiarity with the basics of synoptic studies and form criticism? Appeal to a "consensus" and call it strange others don't agree with it as long as you agree with it right? Very inconsistent especially when you advocate stuff like this!

Vinnie: sayings are more resistant to change than settings.
Vork: You know this because.....? And if it were true, then the settings are almost certainly fictions.

The fact that the evangelists kept "troubling sayings" (that which goes against their theological grain" yet smoothed it down/softened it/ moved it around/ put it in different contexts and so on shows this. You are merely trying to ignore the overly obvious: there is material which goes against the theological grain in the synoptics.

Well, another starting place would be to look at a scholarly reconstructin of Q and see how Mt an Lk altered the sayings context. Don't forget to check if any setting were implied in Q first! Q is hypothetical but it allows some control. Some sayings of course were more loosely copied than others but it would be informative to see what Matthew and Luke do with them!

And do they change any of Mark's sayings into different settings? How about Mark's parables and so on???

Or get a synopsis and go through it. Look at the Q saying the parable of the lost sheep: In Mt (18.10-14) it is directed at the disciples. In Lk at the Pharisees (15.4--7). Same basic saying. Totally different context.

And of course the settings are fictions! Welcome to the last hundred years of scholarship. The sayngs, parables, miracles and so on are largely "movable pericops". See lost sheep parable referenced above. Scholars have long known the evangelists were responsible for the context and placement of very substantial portions of their material. This is elementary.

Take a look at form criticsm as well. We know that church situations shaped a lot of the contexts of the material (e.g. Jesus' disciples are accused, not him!). Surprising, church situations didn't always lead to the creation of material though (e.g. the paucity I am arguing in this very thread). This undercuts free creation and some unrealistic portraits of Mark advocated by "internet scholars."

First off, the event looks like an isolated pericope. It lacks details--even more so than the typical Gospel material which you pointed out with a Helms quote!. Secondly, I can show that its not Marcan--he inherited it. You yourself have just argued the setting is all fiction. Why would you then dispute that Mark is using the event to add to his confused gentile tour? This makes no sense! Are you under the mistaken impression that Mark created the miracle himself?

The fact of a paucity of Gentile material deomstrates this! If there is no such paucity then cite the verses! There is also a saying in Matthew. Thus far you have only focused on Mark as well. Matthew and Luke tried to expand their Gentile material as well. Also the evangelists made a key distinction by divinding history into two periods "Jesus during his own lifetime did not go to Gentiles, though he himself favoured a gentile mission". This was precisely because during his life Jesus conducted a mission to Jews.

Mark took an isolated story and put it in there. An initial indication of this is that there are a lot of words in these 7 verses that never occur elsewhere in Mark's gospel.

As I said above, an initial indication of this is that there are a lot of words in these 7 verses that never occur elsewhere in Mark's gospel. To this I would add the "unusual and bizarre element" in this narrative that make it stand out from the ordinary pattern of miracle stories in the Gospels in general and in Mark in particular. It also has Jesus use an aramaic word (rarely and this is the only time in a healing story!) and so on. As I cited Sander's and Davies, "Most scholars, making the form-critical observation that within the text of the second there is no reference to time or place, take it to be an isolated story which Mark has placed in the Decapolis in order to flesh out the account."

Its the most reasonable reading of the data. And all I am doing is parrotting Meier.

The fact that the other evangelists who used Mark were embarrassed by the story does anything but support your case. As stated, Luke drops the woman because (presumably) of its harshness. They (mt and Lk) both drop the deaf mute because it healing could be easily interpreted as "magic". Its filled with ritual and symbolic actions by Jesus that could easily be seen in this category. This probably explains why this story and the healing at Bethaida are the only two Marcan miracles omitted by Mt and Lk.

And don't raise any nonsense about you can't heal people by spitting on them. No one here is arguing that you can or that this event actually occured ca. 30 ad. No more red herrings, please.

Of course the overall story is not to be accepted until demonstrated as such, But given the nature of the literature, gospel composition and so on, the details are open for investigation. They are neither historical or fictional until demonstrated as such.

You have done nothing but point out the setting is a fiction. You have not argued anything new or said anything I diisagree with. Welcome to critical scholarship. My whole point is that Mark's fictional setting here is built around a harsh saying to Gentiles--who were his audience. The saying goes against the grain and Mark's setting tried to soften and and maximize Jesus' contact with Gentiles. You simply ignore the fact that they are called dogs and Jesus refuses to heal her at first in favor of a contrived explanation that Mark purposefully creative this "positive Gentile" statement.

Next thing you know you'll be doing the apologetical two step and claiming Jesus said this to her with a twinkle in his eye just to test her--he didn't really mean to call her a dog!

Actually, Mark shows that he used lots of earlier sources. See chapter 2 for example. These can be documented.

Crossan accepts the historicity of Judas or of a disciple that betrayed Jesus doesn't he? How do you explain that?

Crossan also accepts the historicity of Jesus' baptism--mentioned in synoptic Gospels and GHebrews.

Furthermore, Corssan's whole method breaks down the details of the narratives and of the sayings and so on into complexes. Show me where he said "all details or sayings or stories or miracles in a fictionalized setting are axiomatically fiction." Of course, Crossan doesn't use narratives very much. He uses epistles and sayings docs pretty much. Thomas, Q and so on. later Gospel material is used for mutliple attestation and embarrassment purposes--generally speaking.

We all know the gospels linked their material together. The details of the gospels have been called "pearls on a string". The evangelists stringed existing material together--along with adding material of their own. We really don't know the setting and context of much in the gospels. We do know the chronoogy of certain obvious things. For example, Jesus died at the end of his ministry

[quote]The "harsh and insulting" comment was a saying put in Jesus' mouth. Mark found a place to put it, in Jesus' "Rock the Gentiles" tour of Lebanon. I was trying to point out, clumsily, that the emphasis on this passage is not on Jesus' question, but on the woman's answer. I have no idea why Mark constructed this fiction, and neither do you. Mark probably had this saying, and as a gentile, had to find a way to soften it for the community of gentiles that he served. In a way, it helps answer the question of why Jesus came to the Jews first, and the gentiles later, which must have been a question on quite a few minds back then.[quote]

It may have been put in Jesus' mouth. But if it was done so it was done so in the early church by a "hardline Christian-Jew". Not by Mark or a Gentile Christian writing or preaching to strengthen or deepen the faith of his/her Gentile audience.

I have already deomonstrated why Mark constructed a Gentile tour. The whole account foreshadows the gentile mission. What other reason did Mark make his confused story THROUGH GENTILE TERRiOTRY for right after A NULLIFICATION OF THE FOOD LAWS and the pericope with the Syrophoenician woman. You are denying the overly obvious.

I did not say they went back to the HJ. The syrophoenician woman saying might. I said that they show Jesus limited his mission to the Jews (See article), not that he said and did these things as Mark described.

Vinnie

edited a pinch on Q right after submission..

Amaleq13

Vinnie,



If I understand your argument correctly, the broad point is that the “paucity of Gentile material” in the Gospel stories can only be understood as forced by the historical fact that Jesus conducted no ministry to the Gentiles.

The fundamental problem with this premise is that a mythical context also requires an absence of a ministry to the Gentiles by Jesus. Not because Jesus was focused on a ministry to the Jews but because, within that context, there never was a Jesus ministry anywhere! In either context, we should expect an absence of evidence of a Jesus ministry to the Gentiles so the “paucity of Gentile material” cannot be considered as evidence against a mythical Jesus. On the contrary, such a state of the evidence is entirely consistent with a mythical context.

Your second and more specific argument is that Mk 7:27 must be considered historical because the inclusion of it goes against the goal of strengthening or deepening the faith of a Gentile audience.

It seems to me that the story, itself, argues against this claim. The fundamental assumption the claim makes is that the idea of Jesus calling Gentiles “dogs” and identifying them as secondary to the Jews would have driven a Gentile audience away but the woman in the story gives no support for that notion. Not only does she fail to be offended by Jesus’ reference, she essentially agrees with it as she turns it around on him! This is even more clear in Matthew’s treatment where he has the woman explicitly agree. Mark is acknowledging that the Gentiles had to wait for Paul and/or the other apostles to learn about the Sacrificed Christ but he is also indicating this isn't the same as the Gentiles being excluded. This is immediately reinforced by a second-healing-of-a-Gentile story. Why should the audience be offended that Jesus had his mind changed by a clever Gentile?

This portrayal of Jesus as, perhaps, harboring some form of prejudice against Gentiles seems entirely consistent with the thoroughly human Jesus Mark describes in general. It certainly seems to me to fit in quite well with a Jesus that has to try twice before succeeding in a healing or a Jesus who uses spit and magic words to perform miracles. While Mark seems comfortable with such human depiction, the Gospel authors who rewrote his efforts clearly did not share that comfort level.

Regarding this saying, I believe you also wrote (though the quote formatting in the original post makes it difficult to be sure):

Perhaps, but that could easily be true within a mythical context. The hardliner-in-question would then be imposing his own beliefs onto his own conception of Jesus and then Mark later accepts it.

Vinnie

Can ONLY be understood? I did not say that. I would say that it SHOULD be understood this way given all available data. I would say that it is BEST understood in this way on historical ground.

The mythicist context--as you say--argues that there never was a Jesus ministry anywhere. If Mark was that creative (required by mythicist framework) we should not expect to see what we see in the text. The mythicist framework CANNOT account for the fact that a gentile Christian who believed in the Gentile mission, who was writing to a Gentile audience, and who tried to maximize contact between Jesus and Gentiles given only scraps to work with cannot be explained by a mythicist framework. If Mark was freely inventing, the paucity of Gentile material combined with his attempt at amplifiying what little he obviously had it unexplainable.

And once you start calling Markan material pre-Macan the silence which the MJ rests upon begins to disappear. I am not saying I actually think there was a silence. Just that all these details are being pushed into the first stratum and that undercuts a silence based argument which is pivotal for the MJ.

You obviously have not read what I wrote at all. This is incorrect.

The story as it now exists in Mark has been softened! Thats the whole point here! Mark created the setting to done down the harsh saying and amplifying Jesus/Gentile contact through a confused Gentile tour which included an isolated story was one means of doing so. Had he been freely creating he would not have needed to do such things. Have you been reading what I wrote? If Mark was freely creating there is no need for Jesus to call the woman a dog or even refuse to heal her at first. This is not free creation. Mark is using inherited tradition. That is the whole point.

My whole point is that Mark softens the account with a fictionalized setting. Your claim that the woman was not offended in the account as it now stand is thus rendered meaningless.

Huh? Why did Mark (a Gentile writing to deepen the faith of other Gentiles) create a Jesus who harbored prejudice against Gentiles in his earthly life? The fact is that Mark did not and cannot be viewed as the author of this.

But the fact that Mark is using inherited tradition here is not the end of the argument. This merely confirms what is found in all four Gospels and Paul already, Jesus' ministry was to the Jews.

How is the early church believing a human Jesus spoke with a syrophoenician woman at a well consistent with the Christ-myth thesis? Remember this "negative" statement about Gentiles must have been popular enough to have been known and used by Mark! How does the CM thesis explain, not only this but the fact that it is found in all four Gospels and Paul?

This 'against the grain' info adds to what all four Gospels and Paul already explicitly teach in their narratives (and Paul's epsitle).

The best way to explain this tradition history is that Jesus limited his ministry to Jewish people and the early church knew this. That is where Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Paul all received their information from. There really was no material to work with. That is why Mark had to desing a toru, add in an isolated saying in "Gentile territory" and soften the scraps of Jesus//Gentile contact he did have.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I'll be replying to choice elements in both your posts.

So you keep asserting. But you, like Crossan, offer very little in the way of serious argument that would support your claims about these sayings.

Creativity in Mark is not required by the mythicist framework. Mark utilized souces, including a sayings source. A Doherty says, after discussing the source issue, "Yet Mark did not invent out of nothing." After noting that Mark did not have Q, he adds "On the other hand, it is equally evident that the evangelist must have been familiar with the Q community and its traditions."

Easily, Vinnie, if you dump the assumption that Mark is some kind of gentile far from Palestine. Ted Weeden, one of the great Mark scholars, has argued that Mark was composed in Casaerea, and there are many scholars who argue for somewhere in the Levant outside of Palestine. Nobody out there is arguing that Mark is a gentile "who tried to maximize contact between Jesus and Gentiles." Is anyone out there saying that? And further, you have no idea what the "maximum" was for Mark. You're making all kinds of assumptions that are completely unwarranted. Finally, Doherty points out that the Mark/Q community of itinerants was geographically extensive, and probably penetrated into Syria and other places around Galilee. Burton Mack tentatively places it in Sidon/Tyre, thus neatly explaining Mark 7 with no reference to to some putative mission to the gentiles at all!

Correct. Unfortunately for you, not a single exgete anywhere argues that Mark's invention is unconstrained. So you are rebutting a strawman.

Ummm....no. It isn't that simple.

No, silence is not pivotal. The pivotal issue for the MJ is that these traditions are communal rather than individual in origin. No one argues for "silence."

Right. But don't confuse "inherited tradition" with "something the HJ said." I already pointed out to you that the passage in question resembles, in general thrust, other verses. There is nothing here that requires an HJ. The constraint on Mark is that he is working with a verse he already has.

So we agree....the setting is fictionalized.

Quite true. Mark did not author the saying. No one claimed he did.

But Vinnine, can you explain how you know that the original context of this saying was anti-gentile? Mark gave it an anti-gentile spin. That doesn't mean that it was so originally.

The way you are reading it, yes. But you have not offered a shred of evidence to support your reading of the original meaning, which has now been lost.

If the early Church knew that much, they would not have had to make up stories about Jesus.

Yes. Which means nothing. Theology is plastic and subjective. Mark had a bunch of sayings, which could be read in several ways. He used them in certain ways, and you project certain readings onto the text. So far you have offered no compelling connection between "goes against the grain" and something historical. I have no objection to seeing Mark in conflict with later theology. But as the other poster noted, Jesus' behavior fits in well with Mark's more human Jesus. Further, the fact that Mark used it is prima facie evidence that it did not bother him theologically.

Of course, Vinnie, that's basic stuff. Yes, they change parables and meanings. We agree the settings are fictional. But what that means is that the original context of the sayings is LOST. Which means that any claims you make about theological "against the grain" are SPECULATION based on your ability to get inside Mark's head.

No one anyone argues for free creation. You are rebutting a strawman.

Yes, I believe Mark created this miracle. The setting is fiction. Mark needs the miracle to fit into the neat structure he is erecting. If you want to argue that this miracle predates Mark, you'll need some powerful and compelling evidence.

Vinnie, "paucity" is a relative term. That's what you have missed here. First you have to demonstrate that relative to some expectation, there is a "paucity" of gentile-related material. You have done nothing of the sort. Mark may well have been written right next door to Galilee, and may not have given two cents about other gentiles. The fact is that YOU DON'T KNOW what Mark's position is.

On its face this is a suggestive one. Alas, it is not as strong as you think and contains an error. Helms argues that this is simply made up from Isaiah 35:5. Also, you erred: Aramaic is also used in the daughter of Jairus story in Mark 5 (talitha qumi, in 5:41, which wakes the dead girl up HFJ p.145). Thus, Sanders also suggests that the Aramaic is there simply as a foreign word of power among all that Greek. There is no way to know from the things you have indicated whether this is a story Mark has made up, or simply incorporated. All other aspects suggest that the story of the healing in 7:31-7 is a fiction invented by Mark on Isaiah 35:5.

<shrug> Matt retains the woman, Luke drops her. They both dump the healed deaf-mute. Conclusion: they don't think it is history. That was what I was pointing out.

I think you missed the point there, Vinnie. You asked me to give some indications of fiction, I gave many. Among them is physical impossibility. It's not a major issue or point, so don't act like it is.

We agree the setting is fiction. Except I managed to do so without the sarcasm.

You ASSUME this. You have to PROVE it.

No, I am simply trying to understand the context, and focus on the interesting element, in which Jesus gets his ass whupped by a female gentile. There is a passage similar in flavor, in Kings, but there are some differences as well.

We both agree that Mark used sources. I have never argued differently...

There isn't any need for me to explain it. Crossan can offer NO reason for doing so. If he has foibles, he has foibles. I am not accountable for his methodological inadequacies.

This is another of Crossan's many evidences-by-declaration. There is no baptism mentioned in Hebrews. Go and read the passage carefully. Crossan simply declares what it means.

• On Isa. xi.2. (The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him) not partially as in the case of other holy men: but, according to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazarenes read, 'There shall descend upon him the whole fount of the Holy Spirit'. . . .In the Gospel I mentioned above, I find this written: And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him, and said unto him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for thee that thou shouldst come, and I might rest in thee. For thou art my rest, and thou art my first begotten son, that reignest for ever.

Where is the baptism? Indeed, Jesus specifically rejects the idea.

• John Baptist baptizeth unto the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized of him. But he said unto them: Wherein (what) have I sinned, that I should go and be baptized of him? unless peradventure this very thing that I have said is a sin of ignorance.

I got these off Kirby's site. There may well have been a baptism there, but there isn't one now.

You keep tossing up strawmen. I never said that. Rather, Crossan argues, in connection with the PN, that where on its deep, intermediate, and shallow structural levels a story can be shown to be fiction on each -- then it is a fiction. That is what I am arguing about the stories in Mark. On every level they betray that they are fictions. There is no incompatibility between Mark using sources and Mark writing fiction, any more than there is between Tolkien using sources and Tolkien writing fiction.

Here is what you said in the OP:

• Seriously though, I think this turns out to be pretty solid evidence for the historicity of Jesus in the end. It completely undermines how mythicists and co. have to treat the text of Mark! (see baptism thread for several examples!)

There is nothing in that article that would compel anyone to regard anything you bring up as compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is simply a bunch of assertions/assumptions about the gospel of Mark that will not stand up to close examination.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Vinnie The mythicist framework CANNOT account for the fact that a gentile Christian who believed in the Gentile mission, who was writing to a Gentile audience, and who tried to maximize contact between Jesus and Gentiles given only scraps to work with cannot be explained by a mythicist framework.

Vorkosigan: Easily, Vinnie, if you dump the assumption that Mark is some kind of gentile far from Palestine.

Whats the difference between outside and far from? Are you saying a paucity of distance indicates something here? Paucity relativeto what!?

My whole point was based upon Mark being Gentile and written to Gentiles. I demonstrated this in my article. Maybe you will be more impressed if your buddy Helms argues this. Here:

Randell Helm's has argued that Mark was written by a Gentile to Gentiles on pp.9-10 of Who Wrote Gospels!

I did not say the whole Gospel is an attempt to do this, merely that Mark does it in chapter 7. I have demonstrated such. You have ignored the overly-obvious.

I actually raised arguments in my paper that Mark was a Gentile writing to a Gentile audience. Rather than pointing out that you disagree with me or something about distance, please feel free to hit them.

It was my strange assumption that Genilte writing to Gentiles to strengthen their faith would not do this. Silly me!

*yawn*

Stating the beliefs of scholas doesn't amuse or impress me. This aint TWeb and I'm not conducting any polls in here.

Yeah, I know it is also used there. I did not err. That story is a raising from the dead. I said the only miracle of "healing". You may not like the distinction but I used the same one Meier did.

This was my argument:

[1] There are a lot of words in these 7 verses that never occur elsewhere in Mark's gospel.

[2] The "unusual and bizarre element" in this narrative that make it stand out from the ordinary pattern of miracle stories in the Gospels in general and in Mark in particular.

[3]It also has Jesus use an aramaic word (rarely and this is the only time in a healing story!).

There is no reference to time or place. it is probably an isolated story which Mark has placed in the Decapolis in order to flesh out the account." This does not mean the account does or does not go back to the historical Jesus.

To this you assert: Helm's argues Mark created the account out of Isaiah 35:5-6. You have offerend no evidence that the account was created by Mark because of this. Naturally the healing would conjure up this verse for proof text-hunting Christians and/or could possible cause them to create them. You have not preseneted any evidence either way. I have presented evidence.

And even if Mark did create it--which you have not even attempted to demonstrate!!!--he still did so to flush out his account in chapter 7. I've lost site of the purpose of this sub-topic! What did it start off as a debate of?

Since we agree the setting is fiction Mark placed an account in his confused and theologically motivated Gentile tour either way. I don't understand your point. There is virtually nothing in the synoptics between Jesus and Gentiles. Mark creates a whole trip through Gentile country (that is confused and confusing) and throws a story in there. This occurs right after a nullification of food laws and the syrophoenician woman. What theological reason besided amplifying scraps is there? I am nto making any big leaps here. This is straighforward. I really don't understand why you are denying this at all.

Re: Crossan on baptism

Crossan places the second citation into the Goespel of the Nazoreans as do many scholars from what I can tell. See the second link to a translation on Kirby's cite. It only has 7 patristic citations and it lacks this one

For the first text block that JDC attributes to GHeb it is presumed that to make sense of the "coming up out of the water" some account of John's baptism preceded it.

Vinnie

Disclaimer: "Ted Weeden doesn't believe it" or "Some scholars disagree" or "Helm's said it was invented based upon the OT" is not a valid response to anything I have written in my above post.

Amaleq13

Vinnie,

Thanks for the clarification on your position.

I don't believe there is evidence that Mark created Jesus' ministry entirely from his imagination. I think the behavior of the Q prophets was a major influence and primary shaping source. If we must assume that the saying of Mk 7:27 is something the author obtained from an earlier source, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to assume it could only have come from an historical Jesus rather than an historical association with the Q prophets. Doherty has suggested that Q originally existed as a collection of wise sayings which were later attributed to a mythical founder-figure. Standing alone, Mk 7:27 seems to fit in with that scenario quite well. It isn't much different than the caution not to throw pearls before swine.

Mark wasn't "freely" inventing. In this context, he would have been constrained, for example, by the historical reality that there had been no ministry to the Gentiles by Jesus.

Why would he need to include reference to Gentile contact? I would think he is anticipating the obvious question a Gentile audience might have upon reading their first-ever narrative description of a living Jesus: Did Jesus ever interact with non-Jews?

If Mark is, as I suggest, relying on the Q prophets for his depiction of the living Jesus, then we would expect him to answer this question through them. What is the evidence regarding Q's and a mission to the Gentiles?

Kloppenborg (Excavating Q, pg.191-92), criticizes the view of Horsley and other scholars that the Q community was thoroughly focused on Israel and excluded the Gentiles. If that opposed view is correct, however, we can easily understand the existence of the "harsh" saying in Mark. Kloppenborg notes that Q is not afraid to criticize "Israel" by comparing them unfavorably with Gentiles but cautions against assuming this equates with a Gentile mission. Some scholars take this as evidence of an actual Gentile mission while others consider it to only suggest that Q was sympathetic to such a notion. It is interesting that this is not far from your earlier summary of the historical Jesus.

If your historical Jesus can be, because of the above, capable of speaking the saying or at least believing the sentiment in Mk 7:27, there does not appear to be any good reason to conclude the same might have been true of the Q community. Given a mythical context wherein Mark uses Q as a template for a living Jesus, the presence of Mk 7:27 is not problematic.

Within the mythical context, Mark would be understood as softening a harsh saying originally repeated by Q prophets and subsequently attributed to Jesus. I agree that the saying/sentiment gives the appearance of something handed down to Mark but there is nothing to argue against the historical source being the Q prophets rather than Jesus.

I agree that there are compelling reasons to consider this an inherited tradition but for the reasons described above, I don't find there to be any compelling reason to assume that it was inherited from a living Jesus rather than the prophets of Q.

Perhaps because his "template" for a living Jesus included a saying that seemed to suggest such a prejudice. We also cannot ignore that this apparent prejudice is immediately reversed by the cleverness of the Gentile. This would fit in with Q's unfavorable comparison of Jewish behavior with Gentile behavior. In fact, Mt's rewrite of the story seems even more consistent (perhaps because he actual held a copy of Q?) where the story ends with Jesus openly praising her. To openly praise the faith of a Gentile is to implicitly criticize any Jew of lesser faith. This is exactly what Q does and, because Q is the original template, that is what Jesus does.

Within the mythical context, it confirms that the entire process started within the Jewish community.

It can't be considered the "best" explanation unless it also explains why there is a distinct absence of reference to ANY ministry by a living Jesus prior to Mark. Paul doesn't tell us about any such ministry and he certainly never refers to Jesus performing miracles. We only find a ministry and miracles when we consider Q but then there are legitimates doubts about whether the name "Jesus" can be reliably assumed to be a part of that movement from the very beginning.

Vorkosigan

<yawn> Vinnie, you still haven't demonstrated that there is a "paucity" of gentile material relative to what we would expect.

Yes, that was a strange assumption. Since you have no idea what Mark was thinking, you can't make that assumption. That is where your thinking starts to go wrong.

Vinnie, these are actual arguments. If, for example, Mark has included Sidon/Tyre because he is from there, then your entire argument falls apart.

This misses the larger point. The Aramaic can be explained as a "word of power" from a foreign language. Your argument that the healing of the deaf-mute predates Mark is not very compelling. Everything else about it looks like fiction.

Conceded. But this passage is too small for stylistic conclusions, and deals with some unusual things.

What "ordinary" pattern?

Yes, but it is the second time in a miracle. And if raising the dead isn't healing, I don't know what is. Meier likes to make distinctions that are of no real relevance. The key issue is that he uses Aramaic in other situations as words of power. So this argument will not work.

That was hard my only argument, but one among an avalanche. Why are you misrepresenting me this way!?

Here, for the third time, as some of the arguments in favor of fictionality:

• As Randel Helms points out at the beginning of Gospel Fictions, the stunning lack of chronology here is a sign we are dealing with fiction. I should add that another is the lack of concreteness, the lack of details like time of day, names, and location. Other than the woman's ethnic identity, we know nothing about her. Of course, the story is basically impossible; there are no demons and no one can heal merely by say-so. The other story, of the deaf-mute, is also basically impossible for the same reasons. Further, it is part of a triad of miracles artificially constructed, and is based on Isaiah 35:5 and the prophecy therein. Finally, of course, the story of the deaf-mute contains one of the most famous geographical errors in Mark -- you can't get to Galilee by going through Sidon (well, you can, but it is like going from Paris to Brussels by way of London!). The whole thing is a fiction.

We are now debating whether this goes back to a pre_Markan source.

So what if you think there is little. You've just blown up your case by noting that three different writers all saw little need of that material. Since all are writing fiction based on sources....

Because you haven't made a case that any "scraps" are actually scraps that go back to any HJ. Nor have you demonstrated at all that there is a paucity of gentile material in Mark relative to what we would expect. You've just attempted to heap on assumptions.

That's reasonable. But that is now lost, isn't it? So we don't know. And since Jesus clearly denies he needs baptism, we are obviously looking at a later, not an earlier, stratum. You cannot use the other Baptisms to deduce that there was a Baptism, and then add it to your evidence that there was a Baptism. Entirely and unacceptable circular.

I understand. We can only cite scholars when they support your position <sigh>

Look, the first thing you need to do is to demonstrate that relative to some expectation, there is a paucity of gentile material in Mark.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

The arguments in this thread are really convoluted... perhaps because so many things are being discussed all at once?

But, basically, Vinnie makes a valid point. It's perfectly obvious from the Synoptic gospels that the movement was originally almost entirely Jewish, and later it was hijacked by Gentiles, who made various additions to Mk and other gospels.

So this seems inconsistent with the mythicist perspective. Because if Mk really was all made up by the Gentiles, why would they bother inventing the Jewish matrix for early Christianity?

But I'd also disagree with Vinnie on many points of detail. Of course myself I follow Loisy, who argued that the earliest versions of all 3 Synoptics were still entirely Jewish-Christian. And later, all these documents were heavily re-edited and expanded (ca. 135 CE).

Regards,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

Who claims Mark was "all made up by the Gentiles"? The author obviously had certain historical realities constraining his efforts even if he was fabricating a living, preaching Jesus. One of those constraints was the Jewish origin of the entire movement (i.e. the Pillars which lead to Paul which lead to Gentiles).

Vinnie

""""But, basically, Vinnie makes a valid point. It's perfectly obvious from the Synoptic gospels that the movement was originally almost entirely Jewish, and later it was hijacked by Gentiles, who made various additions to Mk and other gospels."""""

Yeah, I know the basic thrust of this argument is rock solid. All four gospels and Paul agree on this. Plus even if Mark was altered it was done so early since Matthew retains some of the material.


"""""But I'd also disagree with Vinnie on many points of detail. Of course myself I follow Loisy, who argued that the earliest versions of all 3 Synoptics were still entirely Jewish-Christian. And later, all these documents were heavily re-edited and expanded (ca. 135 CE)."""""""

Yuri, this would a version of Mark VERY early wouldn't it???

Now I've been rethinking Luke's lacking of the Bethsaida section (which is where these verses in Mark fall into!) in light of this. Luke may have had a copy without these things but I have to admit that there are also plausible reasons for Lucan omission here (mark's doubling here, the harshness of the dog saying, the deaf-mute healings could be interpreted as "magic", jesus never nullified the food laws and Luke knew it (see Acts and Peter's vision). I find it rather more difficult to tell either way right now. Did Luke not include it or did he just omit it altogether since he disagreed with it//didn't like it?

At any rate, given Markan priority, Matthew picks up the story of the Syrophoenician woman from Mark. That means this Gentile related material occurs very ealy in Mark since its first and early attestation has it (Matthew includes the account). Luke doesn't, so assuming it wasn't in his argument for the sake of seeing where th argument goes, we have to posit that there was originally a version of Mark lacking--basically all of chapter 7 if you are correct. That chapter has the nullification of food laws, incorrect information on Jewish practives, the Syrophoenician woman, created Gentile tour and so on.

This is basically what Koester and others argued regarding this bethsaida section and I wrote my own article on about the corrupt text of Mark.

In your view:

So we have a version of Mark--mainly Jewish--lacking the clear Gentile expansion. Was this written for Jews or Gentiles? This is a valid question. Can we even answer this?

Could two separate versions of Mark creep up so fast and become popular enough to be used by two different evangelists within 20 years of the Gospels cretion? As a rule shouldn't we allow at least a generation for the Gospel for popularity of it to be a choice of redaction and for it to become popular enough for Matthew to use. I think the generation rule is pretty fair here.

its a two part step here: Mark is written and needs to become popular enough for someone to redact it. This redaction needs to become popular enough for Matthew to use it. If Mark was written in the same general area as Mt this all makes more sense.

How do we determine the provenance of an earlier version of Mark though? These texts could have presumably written further away than most now think couldn't they?

I think your view pushes a version of Mark back, at least--in my estimation--to no later than 60 a.d. Its virtually a first stratum source now.

Since Mark is at least almost as early as a lot of the Q and Pauline corpus, this does not look like it sits too well with mythicism.

At any rate, I'm going to look at some more stuff on this later. Need to see what Matthew includes exactly from the Bethsaida section and so on.

At a same time, if we are positive a Gentile hacked Mark, isn't it just as possible that a judaizing Christian hacked the gentile expansion of chapter 7 out? Once we start speculating like this anything becomes possible. Are there other verses in Mark which would rule this out?

In this case Mat's version of Mark was not redacted, Luke's was simply chopped down.

Vinnie