Vorkosigan

HI guys. In my spare time I am working on a historical commentary on Mark. It's going to have three partss: detail verse by verse exegesis, a larger discusson of structure and plot, and then some specialized articles on specific aspects.

The page on mark 2, still largely under construction and a long way to go! Is at here.

Let me lay out some of the thinking behind this:

First of all, I've pretty much decided to abandon the whole attempt to use any positive criteria. The positive criteria generally put foward by scholars, the Embarrassment, Coherence, Dissimilarity, and Multiple Attestation criteria fail because they are entirely too subjective, assume what they are trying to prove, and because of the lack of independence among the NT documents. This has all been hashed and rehashed here, and in the scholarly publications. Crossan really dealt the whole concept of criteria a mortal blow in The Birth of Christianity. No doubt they will continue to soldier on -- do bad ideas ever die, in the social sciences?

Second, I've decided since reading Ludemann and Crossan closely that mixing criteria is a bad idea. Generally, although NT scholars formally posit the four criteria above, they informally use several others when working on their historical exegesis. For example, almost all scholars use the criterion of "post-easter back-projecting" as a criteria of negative historicity. Anything that looks like post-easter mythologizing and projecting back to the HJ is nixed, under this criteria. There are three problems with this. First, if you have a methodology, all parts of it should be formally identified. Second, this criterion, though frequently used, suffers from both the problems outlined above. It is incoherent, and simply discovers what the user is trying to prove. Third, and most importantly, it conflicts with the positive criteria. Consider the problem of the Syro-Phoenician woman. By the Embarrassment criterion, Jesus' comparing of her to a dog might well be historical. But if you use the NoPostEaster Criterion, you might well regard this as ahistorical, since it may refer to a gentile mission that took place after Jesus' death. Any mix of negative and positive criteria will inevitably founder on that pericope.

So instead, I've decided to take another approach in this website. First, I am limiting this to a commentary on Mark. In other words, this commentary asks: look at Mark, what can potentially be historical? Second, it's going to be very conservative methodologically. I am not going to attempt to show that such-and-such a scene is historical (or not). The colossal failure of the positive criteria, and the multiplicity of Jesus-s in the literature, testify to the emptiness and subjectivity of that approach. Therefore; paradoxically, we are not going to examine the question of historicity in this "historical" commentary. I have to rewrite some of my uses of the word "historical" as a result, in the final edit.

Instead, we are going to look at historicity another way. We are going to use negative criteria to eliminate anything that can be shown to be impossible (supernatural) or fiction. The advantage of negative criteria is that they put what we know on a firmer and less subjective footing. The goal of this is not to demonstrate that event X (the healing of a paralytic, the Temple Cleansing) did not occur or that there is no historical kernel. That cannot be demonstrated from Mark alone. Rather, it eliminates the possibility of using the text as historical evidence. In other words, since (for example) Mark's portrayal of the healing of the paralytic in Mk 2:1-12 exhibits numerous structural and literary features that render it most probably a fiction of the author of Mark, there is no way it can be used to support the existence of any historical event. The only way to imagine that it was historical is if you had a outside and independent vector on the story, which the NT docs do not offer, and which there are no historical accounts of. Note that this does not mean it never happened, nor does it mean that there is not a historical kernel. It only means that you cannot adduce Mark alone as evidence for that particular event, since all the features of the story can be accounted for literary invention and dependence on every level.

The negative criteria I am using are actually quite simple.

1) anything interpolated is fiction relative to Mark.
2) anything supernatural is a fiction
3) anything that exhibits literary dependence on several levels, or strongly on one level, is a fiction
4) all Markan redaction is fiction.

Another thing I am doing is trying to record all the criteria I am using. Some of them fall under a "common sense" rubric that is entirely too subjective. For example in Mark 2 four men lower the paralytic through the roof of Jesus' house. Robert Price has great fun with the many absurdities in this presentation (the men bring ropes? for example) and NT scholars have often seen an anachronism, as the Greek seems to imply the roof was tiled. But the absurdities really do not mean anything one way or another. So I have decided not to use "common sense" or to use it as little as possible." Rather, the episode is clearly fiction invented by Mark, because of its literary and redactional features.

The website is still in its Infancy (so this is the Infancy narrative ). But I just wanted to get it out here, so mayhap some will comment in illuminating ways. Peter Kirby gave me a list of books I should probably explore, and I'd be happy for suggestions. I have ordered Gundry's commentary, BTW.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

well posted friend. From that alone I learned some things I did not realize. Please, do keep this post up, as I prepare to write some commentaries on your commentaries. Optimi fiunt meliores. Good luck with this endeavour.

Ted Hoffman

A sharp mind, quick wit, thoroughgoing skepticism, merciless logic, clear articulation and a relentless eye for detail that can see through cushions of rhetoric and without the burden of theological commitments has finally decided to put his work on the web.

I look forward to the shattering of many myths.

Rick Sumner

Check.

I must beg to differ. We can agree, to be sure, that Jesus never truly healed anyone--miracles don't happen. But did those present *believe* he did? Faith healers exist even today, so it's not necessarily "fiction" in the strict sense.

John P. Meier summed this dilemma up aptly:

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Comm11.htm

Here we're left a similar problem though. Allowing an historical Jesus, he must have done some things that led people to believe he was the Messiah--if he didn't, nobody would have thought he was the Messiah. To steal Crossan's phrasing, some things that appear to be "prophecy historicized" must be "history remembered." So there must be some correlation between his life, and OT prophecy.

Almost by definition this, of course, is true. One must wonder if it doesn't leave an easy ad hoc though. You are, after all, attempting to establish what is pre-Markan. How do you intend to establish whether something is Markan redaction before you establish what is pre-Markan?

How do you know what is redacted by Mark, without knowing what it looked like first? For example, the quintessential Markan element is the "Messianic Secret." But how do you know that's Mark's redaction, and not simply his copying of an earlier source, or recitation of oral tradition? Perhaps this could be shortened to "all redactive tendencies are fiction," eliminating the Markan qualifier?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan,

This sounds like a good thing. I agree with you that approaching the historical-critical question from the negative end (what can be ruled out) rather than the positive end (what is certifiable) is more fruitful. I will be sure to link to it from ChristianOrigins.com when it gets out of the Infancy stage.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

A very good point. A yet -- taking the paralytic in Mark 2 as an example -- any pericope that contains liberal doses of the supernatural, Markan redaction, literary structure (Mark's patented "miracle - lesson" format"), and literary dependence -- on Kings, is probably a Markan fiction.

It's pretty much the same idea that I was pursuing in the thread on the Temple. The person who wants to claim that Jesus was actually a healer is stuck with the fact that the healing stories in Mark (at least) appear to be literary creations, usually on every level. There is, as you rightly pointed out, the prima facie evidence: Jesus goes around healing, and Mark mentions numerous healings, not merely as the foci of a pericope, also in sentences that are redactional in nature, that often close a pericope. That may indicate a tradition of healings. On the other hand, it may indicate creation based on the famous passage in Isaiah where the lame walk, the blind see, etc. Since we can account for all the features of the healings by literary invention, why should we allow them to be historical fact?

Then you go on to make a cogent argument:

Some messiahs, like SHABBATAI TZVI did do things like annointing themselves with oil. But on the other hand, Rebbe Schneerson did not, and specifically denied he was the messiah, and was paralyzed with a stroke, and still his followers elevated him to messiah status. Bar-Kochba changed his name to refer to the Star, and was said to be of Davidic descent. I think the descriptions in Josephus are generally too thin to make a determination. It seems that on the whole comparisons are not illuminating(!).

The problem of "He Must Have Done Something" which I have mentally dubbed "The Historical Kernel Problem" is really one that can only be solved by adopting or giving up pre-suppositions, I think.

Hahaha. That has crossed my mind. The only answer is intersubjectivity, which is the consensus of scholars, essentially.

That's not a bad idea at all. Many thanks.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Gundry's commentary will prove challenging at points. At others an evangelical bias is transparent. I do recommend dialoguing with it though.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

The combination of the three works well, it was the criteria used on its own I was questioning.

I'm inclined to agree, as I've vociferously suggested more than once. Yet aren't we being left the same problem of reversibility we're trying to get away from here? Again, used with other criteria it, of course, becomes stronger, but on its own this one looks specious to me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gregor

Great work.

I'm curious, though, about your commentary on the mistaken high priest in Mark 2:28. Are you implying that the HJ stated this priest reference incorrectly, that the author of Mark knew it was incorrect, but that he included this error to give Jesus a more human side (i.e. he was capable of making errors)?

Thanks

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie and Rick asked hor you determine something that is pre-Markan and something that is a Markan redaction.
Vinnie
I think a major sign of redaction is reality conforming to stylistic devices in terms of plot, sequence and characters. One also needs to be able to clearly discern a 'Markan hand' to argue Markan redaction.
Impossible events (like temple clearance) and events that are unlikely to have earlier traditions due to socio-historical contexts are likely Markan inventions. So stylistic criteria is key. Vork can you do that? Come up with stylistic criteria for identifying the Markan hand - and this criteria must be testable via Schweizer's style statistic method.
Also, events that are clearly borrowed from the OT are likely to be Markan creations. But it must be demonstrated conclusively.

I think redaction can also be looked at two levels: a fake pericope in a wider background setting of the whole narrative is like a redaction of that narrative (assuming its from tradition). A fake element in a pericope (like a character or a scene, or the sequence) is also redaction of that pericope.

I will just give a rough rundown of my opinion on the question of Markan redaction/invention vis a vis pre-Markan tradition.

The feeding of the five thousand is likely redactional material rather than tradition because of the unlikely prospect of five thousand (4500 in Homer) people following Jesus aimlessly and even reaching his destination before him so that he finds them waiting for him - hungry for spiritual nourishment - till they get hungry and he has to feed them. This feeding is also not found in first stratum (i.e. no likelihood of pre-Markan tradition) which places it in more shaky ground.

The disturbance at the temple is Markan invention (i.e. no likelihood of pre-Markan tradition) for obvious reasons.

The walking of water (Hydropatesis) is likely a Markan invention too (i.e. no likelihood of pre-Markan tradition).

The Geographical errors are definitely a result of Markan redaction (i.e. there may have been a tradition, but he came up with an itinerary and got a few things wrong as a result)

The Intercalations are also evidence of Markan redaction. Stlistic devices (chiastic structures) are Markan redactions.

The PN is likely Markan invention (or heavy redaction if we grant Crossan's Cross Gospel - or the feminist PN) especially the part about Pontius Pilate asking inane questions like "Are you the King of the Jews?" and "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" and "what evil has he done?" these are uncharacteristic of a man who was infamous for his brutality. The purple robes and other nonsensical events in the crowd mockery scene point to other literary sources.

Its a lot of work.