aa5874

Now, did the author of Mark also expect his audience to be familiar with fiction?

neilgodfrey

So you see no reason in the text to interpret this "watching the proceedings" to have any relation to testifying as witnesses of the gospel subsequently? I am attempting to find justification within the text alone for any interpretation, but it seems you are trying to open the cracks to bring in some other nontextual interpretation, and are indeed bringing in the "testifier" role.

The women see only a corpse. Then they see it sealed and then no longer find what they continue to look for. I suggest any "testifying" function belongs to those who saw the resurrected Jesus in the other gospels.

This argument as you have expressed it has generally (if not uniformly) been meant to say that the named characters in the gospel were personally known to Mark's audience as real people. It seems like a dodge now to read from more than one poster here that they are finally conceding that the names could at least theoretically be fictional.

No-one but no-one has ever argued or suggested that that the author did not expect his audience to know what was meant by the names. That sounds too much like a straw-man escape clause.

This extract does not contradict the argument I was making. I am quite sure that Louis Gottschalk is assuming that the document itself has previously passed provenance tests. Internal evidence in such a document is not the same at all as working with internal evidence in a document of a range of hypothetical and debatable provenances.


Naturally. And no question. But everyone who reads the gospel knows about the scene of Simon of Cyrene. Many people see in it some sort of subtle or not so subtle commentary on the initial instructions given to the other Simon and the disciples generally. Sermons are preached on it, it appears in movies, the Simon of Cyrene character was even known among gnostics with a role that was controversial to the orthodox. He is as much a part of the synoptic narrative as the crown of thorns. The scene is striking. That another person, a passerby, should be "privileged" or otherwise to become part of Christ's own Passion hits readers powerfully, despite the brevity with which it is told.

By plot I mean a pivotal turning points or focii on which the direction of the story action (narrative) depends.

They are such a striking image that one scarcely sees any portrayal of the crucifixion scene that omits them. Every verse in this scene is powerful -- and memorable -- for its brevity and starkness.


As per post #232:

Now if, as you concede, the names were originally ciphers, then it is quite reasonable to expect them not to have been known or understood outside Mark's community.

But if we are talking about historical persons, real sons of a real Simon of Cyrene, then one has to postulate the most disinterested bored Anglican-like communities of Christians everywhere else outside Mark's community.

If we are talking about real people related to anyone in the gospel, and who were known personally to a particular church or christian community somewhere, it is simply inconceivable that news about them would not spread beyond that community. How can we imagine people within living memory or who are close relatives of the very characters in the gospels themselves (even just one of the gospels) not being of more than just small-town neighbourly interest?

We are talking about a growing sect, still a minority sect, often persecuted or experiencing social ostracism. Such people stick together, they are close, they identify themselves as one large family -- as we see in Paul's and John's letters. They communicate with each other. News spreads. Gossip and the grapevines run hot. This may be hard to appreciate if we have only personally known large well-established churches who are not interested in knowing about anyone except those with whom they share Sunday tea and biscuits. But those who know the experience of sects whose conditions of existence promote a more enthusiastic and committed approach to their faith, also know how disparate congregations feed on news of their peers, and leaders, far and wide.

Sons of the very man who carried Jesus' cross attracted no interest for any other Christians? No interest in pumping others (epistle-bearers, other travelers) to pump them for tidbits about their father and what he said about that day? Or what he said about how Jesus looked and the details of what he saw and experienced? Or how he thought about it and responded to it all subsequently? Or for where his sons were on that occasion and their relations with their father? And how they came to be converted if indeed they were?

These are the sorts of questions any community of normally curious humans would have about such a person known to have carried the very cross of Jesus. Anything less is to reduce the question from a human one to a mathematical one of what logically can constitute inclusive and exclusive sets. Possible, but by no means the default option. Especially when we know that their gospel, Mark, was well enough known to others -- e.g. at the very least two (and quite likely three) other evangelists. And given also that their gospel shows affinity with the theology of the Pauline "communities".

Neil

Ben C Smith

I am undecided on that. It forms no part of my argument on this thread.

I think, given the genre of Mark as bios, that they were real people. However, on this thread (in which I have not really brought up the genre of Mark) I am content to note that the readers would have known who they were, even if only in a fictional manner, like one comic book referring to the hero of another or some such.

That is not a concession I am making, since I think I know the genre of Mark.

I beg to differ.

No, he is talking about a document whose provenance is completely unknown, what he is calling a totally strange document. His whole point is that internal considerations can be brought to bear where no external considerations are available.

I for one do not.

I think Simon of Cyrene fails as a pivotal turning point in the gospel of Mark. Jesus is going to be crucified before Simon comes along, and he is going to be crucified after Simon comes along.

I make no such concession.

Well, this is just a fallacy on your part, plain and simple.

Ben.

aa5874

There is absolutely nothing that you can use in gMark to claim that anyone in gMark was real or human, except those that were mentioned by credible external non-apologetic sources.

All that is obvious is that the author wrote about persons called Mary, i.e, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, Mary the mother of James and Mary the mother of James and Joses.


And, fictional characters do NOT know each other or refer to one another, it is the authors who must first introduce them to the readers and then write about them. And further, certain well developed characteristics of fictional characters can re-vamped or altered with time at the whims and fancy of their authors without any prior knowledge of or expectation of the readers or audience.

Genre or bios cannot be used to determine that Mary Magdalene , any other Mary did exist, or the audience knew the sons of Mary, such a determination is directly related to corroboration from credible non-apologetic external sources.

spamandham

Possibly so! That's the whole point of this side bar. Just because "Mark" expects his audience to be familiar with a character, does not imply that the character was historical. The character could be a well known (at the time) fictional, legendary, or mythical character.

aa5874

Possibly so!

You have finally admitted that you really do NOT know what the author of Mark expected his readers to know.

Did the author of gMark KNOW anyone named Mary Magdalene who was at the tomb or had he ever heard of her before writing? Was there a tomb with a body in the first place, did the author ever hear about any women who visited a tomb before his writing?

Did the author of gMark actually KNOW anyone named Mary mother of Joses, Mary mother of James or Mary mother of James and Joses or had ever heard of them before writing?

You have NO idea what the author knew or his expectations.

spamandham

'admit' implies I was being obscure or dishonest about my position. I've never claimed to KNOW what the author of Mark expected of his readers, nor have you asked me to clarify anything in that regard.

I'm merely saying it's a reasonable inference - and the same type of textual analysis most of us would employ for any text, modern or ancient, and independent of genre.

aa5874

I did not EXPECT you to think that I implied you were dishonest after you READ my post. And I don't EXPECT my audience to think so, either.





How in the world can it be a "reasonable inference" based on the fact that you have no idea what the author knew or expected, or the readers, based on the fact that you do not know if gMark was fiction, based on the fact that you do not know if Mary Magdalene even existed or was known to the author or the readers, and you do not know if Mary the mother of James, the mother of Joses, and Mary the mother of James and Joses existed, or if they were ever known to anyone other than the author or if he/she fabricated the characters, including Jesus, and the tomb?

How can your inference be reasonable when you are not even sure of the audience or the readers and when and where they read gMark.

Your inference is totally unreasonable and is nothing more than a wild guess.

neilgodfrey

Maybe we are making some ground now. It argue that the names are real people on the assumption that they are in a "bios" is a more coherent case than anything else.

You may not be among the many who do so interpret it, but you certainly are among everyone who knows the scene all too well. But it is more to the point that such an event, if historical, could scarcely pass beneath the radar in the rumour mill of early Christian talk of their life-time/within a generation historical Jesus. And for such a person to have family among the community of believers -- how could such news not escape the boundaries of but one tiny community?


Then we are agreed. My point has been Simon's role in the narrative. You have claimed it is peripheral. It is peripheral if seen as part of the plot. But it is as much a part of the narrative as the crown of thorns.

I apologize. You did not. I wrote in haste. You did, rather, appear to concede the possibility, if only for sake of argument . . . .

and again

How so? Early Christians would not be possessed with interest in any contacts, friends and relatives of anyone who was involved with Jesus, especially at his crucifixion??? Where is the fallacy in assuming otherwise?

Neil

Ben C Smith

Progress has indeed been made. Thanks for your patience.

Yes, I should have clipped that first sentence. I wanted the second.

Given anything even vaguely resembling the account of the passion in Mark, who in your view would have (A) been interested in passing along this datum and (B) known that Simon bore the cross?

I am wondering where, at this point, I claimed that James and Joses or Rufus and Alexander were among the community of believers.

I am certainly not against such a proposition, but I have not argued it on this thread.

The question is not whether such news might escape the boundaries of one community (which I very much doubt was tiny, in the case of Mark), but rather whether we can assume that such news had to have extended to the Matthean and Lucan communities. Saying that more than one community must have known Joses and James (and I do not even go that far) is not the same as saying that the Matthean and Lucan communities had to have known them.

I do think early Christians were potentially interested in those who had contacted Jesus during his lifetime (although I am quite certain for a variety of reasons that not all Christians had such interests). I doubt, however, that this interest would extend to either (A) sending these people, let alone their children (who are not claimed to have contacted Jesus), round about the empire on a celebrity tour or (B) sending oneself on a pilgrimage to visit them.

At the risk of anachronism, let me ask you a question. Do you think that devout fans of Elvis Presley know the names of most of the children of people who met Elvis during his lifetime, even during key events of his life? (If this analogy is not apt for you, why not? What is missing?)

Ben.