Ben C Smith

1.

2.

3.

Number 2 involves a real, historical person uttering a real, historical prophecy, the recreation of which deliberately echoes scripture. Number 3 involves a possibly fictitious person never uttering such a prophecy at all, the fictitious composition of which likewise deliberately echoes scripture.

How then does identifying the deliberate scriptural echoes help us decide between whether the original event is historical or fictitious?

Let me ask the question this way: Granted that retrojecting a predictive prophecy does not automatically entail echoing past prophecy (see Daniel 11 and 1 Kings 13.1-3, among others), why do the synoptic evangelists choose to echo past prophecy when they retroject (if indeed that is what they are doing) the prophecies made on Olivet? If the answer is that they simply like to anchor their material in the OT scriptures for whatever reason (to validate Jesus with the Jews, to squeeze Christianity under the umbrella of Judaism in the eyes of Romans and other pagans, to fulfill the old predictions at last, to prove that Jesus was the messiah, or what have you), then what is to prevent them from taking an actual historical incident and casting it in terms of the OT? Would we not expect them to do this?

Ben.

TedM

Good point. I stated my position too ambiguously. I said the only evidence we have is that they took it as a serious work of history/biography. I should have said they the only evidence is that they took it as a serious work of history/biography but not as God's infallable word, which therefore made it subject to their own additions.

Changes don't indicate a belief that the original story was entirely fictional, but they could indicate a belief that certain details were believed to have been in error. I suggest that the fact that at least 3 others repeated the story of a historical man, and that 2 of them (Luke and John) clearly say this was about a real man is evidence that they believed Mark wrote about a real man even if Mark didn't. Otherwise we have 4 long gospels (not to mention the others) that refer to Jesus as a man yet never let on that they know they are talking metaphorically only. That doesn't seem very likely to me.

ted

Chris Weimer

Vork, regarding the question in your second post on this thread about where the twelve came from, I don't think you have to look any further than the twelve tribes of Israel, with Judah being the "traitor" to Jesus aka Christians (something to do with Jerusalem?).

Amaleq13

I have apparently not been clear enough. I think the only thing parallelism can really accomplish is cast doubt on any claim of historicity in the story. It doesn't establish non-historicity but it certainly seems to make it difficult to assert history. I don't see how we can ever know if the event actually happened unless we also have external corroboration.

If he felt free to change the stories to fit his personal beliefs, I don't see how one could say he took it "as a serious work of history/biography" in the sense Ted seemed to be suggesting (ie a modern sense of "this is the way it happened and anything else is simply untrue").

Did anyone in the ancient past have such a conception of what we call "history"?

Amaleq13

I don't think it does but the use of Scripture to tell a story seems to me to make any argument for historicity more difficult if not impossible to establish. If there is history in there, I'm afraid it has been so thoroughly repainted with Scripture that we have no hope of identifying it.

Nothing and yes. I think the only hope for establishing historicity involves external corroboration for any given event or detail. Unfortunately for those who wish to make such a claim, that sort of corroboration appears to be exceedingly rare and, when present, tends to only confirm rather uninteresting aspects of the story.

Amaleq13

I suppose that is possible but then we still end up not knowing what really happened or even if anyone has given us an accurate account. How can we tell the difference between a personal preference and a more reliable source of factual information?

It is consistent with that assumption but it isn't really evidence the assumption is correct. It is also consistent with the assumption that the subsequent authors really liked the idea of depicting the life of the pre-crucified Christ in a story but didn't care for the specific way it was originally accomplished.

You find it more likely that an author writing a metaphorical story would break out of the metaphor to explain it was a metaphor? It seems to me that obviates the whole point of using metaphor to tell a story.

Ben C Smith

This is a different level of argumentation than the actual use of OT parallelism as a negative criterion (id est, one whose purpose is to establish nonhistoricity). I certainly understand being wary of finding historicity, especially on the level of finer detail, amongst the OT parallels, but I cannot see pressing every parallel to mean that the OT itself was the source of the story in the first place.

I agree that the use of parallels obscures things and makes things harder for the historian. I disagree that the proper response is to then chalk the whole enchilada up to sheer invention, as when in that other thread Vorkosigan (A) counts up how much of Mark parallels the OT, (B) converts that material into a percentage (about 65%), and then (C) concludes: Mark is fiction, Andrew. Every parallel appears to have fallen on the fiction side of the scale.

That is no mere non liquet as you seem to be advocating. That is using OT parallelism as a starkly negative criterion.

Ben.

TedM

If it were one author I can see it, but not 4+ others. I admit though that the case of historicity is complicated by the many parts that appear to be/include fiction within the works.

ted

Amaleq13

I initially considered parallelism as such, myself, but evidence that parallels were typically used to describe known historical events seems to make that a dubious use.

Amaleq13

I don't understand why the same reasoning doesn't apply to subsequent authors rewriting the original. That they retained the metaphorical nature of the original narrative seems to suggest the same appreciation of and respect for the style of story-telling that argues against obviating the fundamental purpose.

These subsequent authors weren't critics or teachers so I don't see why we would expect them to expose the metaphor. They are doing the same thing as the original author only, in their opinion, in a better way. We should no more expect them to obviate their own metaphors than we would the original.