Rick Sumner

Essentially, yes. In the case of JBap, Vork's method leads to a false conclusion--JBap was definitely (or as definitely as we can say, when dealing with such ancient sources) executed, yet without Josephus, and applying Vork's method, we would conclude that he wasn't.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

CX

Don't fret. Even after 2 1/2 years (most of that as a moderator) I get confused by the personalities. Welcome to BC&H. Incidentally I was unaware that there were any other atheists in flatland USA.

Ted Hoffman

Vork has never argued that the influence precludes that something happened. His argument is that once the influence is demonstrated, we have no reason to believe there is anything historical behind the story until otherwise proved.

The ultimate result of such a project would be to make it untenable to treat Mark as a document that contains history. Any such claim, without clear support from external vectors, at best, would be wishful.

Yes, there may have been some events involved. There may be some events involved behind the story of dracula. Maybe something happened in Paris that engendered the story. Maybe JBap spurned herodias' advances the same way Joseph turned away from Potiphar's wife. Maybe an unknown madman entered Jerusalem on the back of a donkey with children hitting him naughtily with tree branches...

The important thing is, can we rely on Mark to know what happened? Do we have any reason to believe that "something" happened?

The answer, barring external vectors, is an emphatic "No".

DramaQ

Ah hah! Now I’m getting it! You're saying:

If we accept that “influence from a prior story�? proves “fiction�? then

The Execution of JBap is fiction
(Josephus tells us otherwise)

If we accept that “real events can be repackaged based on a prior story�? then

We can not use the method to weed out fiction

That makes sense to me. Vork’s method can show that the story is (probably) less than true. And without independent verification, we have no way of deciding how much (if any) “truth�? has been included in the story.

Is it a “true story�? embellished by unrelated/borrowed details or a fiction with bits of true story thrown into it?

I have to agree with Ted that the demonstration of borrowing shifts the burden of proof to the advocate of “true story�?.

LOL! Think how many fewer of us there would be if there had been a “Sermon on the Plains�?.

Amaleq13

Any method can produce false conclusions if it is not able to use all relevant information. Rather than suggest the method must be discarded, I would think this observation simply suggests that it is wise to consider all conclusions, regardless of method, provisional.

Also, I would think that, absent Josephus, the best Vorkosigan's method could conclude is that we have no reliable information about how John died.

Amaleq13

I feel terrible now. You must have thought I was abandoning you to a life of atheistic isolation when I moved.

Rick Sumner

I think it's best to consider all conclusions borne of method arbitrary, unless said method is consistently effective. Ironically, Vork seems to think the same thing of every methology save his own, frequently due to the same reversibility he confesses his own to have.

It can't even conclude that--the information Mark provides could be more or less reliable. The best it can conclude is that Mark was influenced by the OT, and not even that consistently, as the "strength" of a given parallel is inherently a subjective assessment.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

CX

Fortunately Mrs. Jimi is an atheist too. Plus, no offense, but I'm quite sure I much more enjoy cuddling with her than I would with you.

Steven Carr

It is a commandment, naturally, but not of *the* commandments.

I've never read anything which says that it was forbidden to read out Exodus 20. Naturally you could not read it out *verbatim*, after all it included the name of God! Is this all Malina meant - that Jews did not pronounce the name of God?

'And they all heard a voice that came to all of them from above, insomuch that no one of these words escaped them, which Moses wrote on two tables; which it is not lawful for us to set down directly, but their import we will declare.'

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...phus/ant-3.htm

Why this means that you are allowed to add 'Do not defraud', (which Matthew promptly removed from the sayings of Jesus when he rewrote Mark, is beyond me.

Intelligitimate

Vork's criteria don't eliminate JBap's existence, even though everyone in this discussion would agree that the JBap = Elijah part of Mark is a literary fiction. And in this case, Josephus actually confirms Vork, since Josephus accounts a completely different and likely more historical version of the actual events. Thus we know, by an outside vector, that Mark's account is fictional, and Vork merely added confirmation to it by showing its literary roots.