Rick Sumner

It depends on him being close. A model that has Mark basing most or all of his gospel on pseudo-midrash requires Mark to be remarkably creative.

And you illustrate your point by comparison to Homer and Shakespeare. If you intend to compare Mark to Homer or Shakespeare, but do not consider them geniuses, one must wonder why you tried to make any point at all, given that your second paragraph would then flatly contradict your first.

The one that is "usually suggested" by Markan scholars. That Mark slapped several existing traditions down together, and joined them with sloppy mergers.

Yes, this is an oversimplification. Elaboration beyond that isn't necessary for the present point, however.

ETA

As an interesting aside (and not directed at you), the argument that Mark is writing fiction demands that Mark invented the transfiguration, because it has all the hallmarks usually associated with Markan fiction (see Vork's own commentary on this).

Earl Doherty's argument from silence demands that Mark did not create the transfiguration (on this see his points on 2 Peter).

Either Earl's argument from silence is strong, and Mark didn't invent his gospel, receiving at least some as traditional material. Or Mark is fiction, and Earl's argument isn't strong, because 2Peter is silent but knows the gospels.

Bit of a catch-22 for the mythicist, since both are appealing arguments, but both can't be right.

Toto

Those were just the first two examples that came into my head of non-supernatural literary works that had a wide influence. But there are other cultural artifacts that have been influential that most people would not call supernatural - Aesop's fables, the character of Luke Skywalker in Spielberg's movie, the movie the Exorcist. Widespread cultural influence is a fact of history, not something that requires a supernatural explanation.


Has anyone argued that Mark invented his entire gospel without reference to any other source? Clearly Mark drew on the Hebrew Scriptures, and possibly Homeric themes. Mythicism only requires that Mark not have drawn on traditional stories of a historic Jesus, and there is no evidence of that here.

Doherty here seems to emphasize the differences between the transfiguration scene in 2 Peter and the synoptics. His argument is that the Transifguration in 2 Peter is a vision, lacking any of the earthly details of the gospels.

I'm not sure where you see the problem. Feel free to elaborate.

aa5874

Please tell me who was fooled when Jesus believers were regarded as atheists, and cannibals since the 2nd century?

And it appears that it was Constantine the Emperor who SAVED Jesus and his followers from hell on earth.

Rick Sumner

You're confusing the argument that "Mark is writing fiction," (a Michael Turton mainstay) or that Mark did not intend his gospel to be taken literally with "Mythicism." The two are not synonyms.

And the question is not whether he had "reference to another source," it's whether he had access to existing narrative traditions about Jesus.

Turton in particular stands out, because so far as I know nobody has drawn it out as much as he did. It's a less vocal discussion on this board since his absence, but the general sentiment still lingers on.

If Turton is right, and Mark's gospel represents nothing but Markan redaction of Hebrew scripture or other sources--if there was no "pre Markan" narrative, then 2 Peter cannot know of the transfiguration without knowing Mark.

In other words, the argument that Mark is writing fiction requires us to assume that Mark is the inventor of Mark's narrative. Anybody who knows events described in Mark's narrative must either directly or indirectly, know the gospel of Mark.

So, to put it in terms of the proponents, either Turton is right, Mark made up the transfiguration, and 2 Peter has to know Mark. Or Doherty is right, there was an independent tradition regarding the transfiguration, that was known to both Mark and 2 Peter.

So, if Markan redactive elements are evidence of Markan invention, and Markan invention is evidence of Markan intention, then Mark cannot be both fiction, and independent witness to the transfiguration in 2 Peter.

By way of analogy, L Frank Baum had silver shoes on Dorothy Gale. MGM turned them red. Anybody who depicts an auburn haired, red shoed Dorothy knows the MGM musical, either directly or indirectly. So the question here, is whether the argument that Mark was writing fiction, or excercising literary creativity (inventing the red shoes), or was their a pre-Markan movement, that included narrative elements (copying the red shoes). The argument for Markan fiction demands the former. Doherty demands the latter. Both cannot be right.

I'm aware of what Doherty says. I in fact had a discussion with him about, and made a pair of posts on my 'blog at point. What Doherty says is precisely the problem, because it is at lagerheads with the only extensive argument that Mark is fiction.

The only address I got to the obvious indicators of Markan invention was that Helmut Koester says it's probably an independent tradition. And apparently if Helmut Koester says so, it must be true.

Perhaps most notable (here Turton is right and Doherty isn't) is the obvious intention to separate Jesus from Elijah, both in the Transfiguration and immediately proceeding from it. Reeks of Markan invention.

But if Turton is right, then 2 Peter knows Mark, and the argument from silence is wrong. 2 Peter is both silent, and has gospel knowledge.

See above. You can also search the archives if you're so inclined. Turton himself was aware of the conflict immediately, and promptly agreed that Doherty was wrong.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

But, when the passage about the transfiguration is carefully examined in 2 Peter 1.17, it does NOT appear to be from gMark at all.

The author of 2 Peter may have used words from gMatthew' or a similar source.

This is 2Pe 1:17 - Look at the similar phrase in gMatthew, and even "hear him" is missing from 2 Peter but present in gMark.

Mt 17:5 - It is gLuke who may have copied gMark

Mark 9:7 - Luke 9:35 - It is likely that the author of 2 Peter did not get his transfiguration dialogue from gMark.

Rick Sumner

Hence the term "indirectly."

It would be wise to make sure you know what is being argued before attempting to address it.

aa5874

I am addressing statements found in your post. They are recorded.

It would appear that the author of 2 Peter did not have to know gMark directly or INDIRECTLY. The author of 2 Peter used words, as I have demonstrated, not found in gMark's transfiguration dialogue.

The author of 2 Peter did not appear to get the words "IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED" directly or indirectly from gMark. The words are simply NOT there.

2 Peter 1.17 may have been derived directly or indirectly from gMatthew.

Rick Sumner

I'm going to try and explain this to you one more time, and that's going to be it.

If 2 Peter is quoting Mark, he knows Mark directly.

If 2 Peter is quoting someone else who knows Mark, he knows Mark indirectly

What, exactly, do you think "indirect" means, if not that "He knows someone who knows Mark?"

Unless you are going to take the rather odd position that Matthew or Luke are independent of Mark, then knowledge of Matthew or Luke is indirect knowledge of Mark. You are arguing the very case I am making. Under the misguided notion that you are disagreeing with me.

Wow.

aa5874

I understood you perfectly well, that is why I responded to your post.

This is the crux of the matter. Is the author of Peter quoting gMark directly or indirectly?

It does not APPEAR so. The author of gMatthew used words not found directly or indirectly in gMark.

Both the authors of 2 Peter and gMatthew may have used some other source than gMark, directly or indirectly.

Please tell who and what the author of 2 Peter knew, directly or indirectly, when he wrote the 17th verse of the 1st chapter of the 2nd Epistle called Peter?

No. You have your case, deal with your position. Don't try and tell me what to argue.

My position is that the author of 2 Peter 1.17 did not get the words "IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED" directly or indirectly from gMark.

The words are completely absent from gMark.

The author of gMatthew, even if it assumed he knew gMark, either used other sources or made up the words "IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED".

It follows logically that the author of 2nd Peter may have derived the transfiguration dialogue, directly or indirectly, from some source other than gMark or gMatthew.

GMatthew's assumed knowledge of gMark did not hinder the author from using other sources, or himself, for his birth narrative and other events, the transfiguration dialogue included.

spamandham

In the 1st/2nd centuries, anyone who knew how to write was among the elite - far far from being a "simpleton".

You have Constantine to thank for the spread of Christianity. If you consider him a god, that's up to you.