Amaleq13

I thought it was obvious. Deliberately making one's task more difficult than it needs to be is stupid.

If the author was not stupid, he had no choice but to strain to find a scriptural connection.

One reason for his lack of choice is historicity. You seem to think that he would strain just to preserve an idea but you haven't explained why an idea might be so inflexible as to require a strained connection.

I agree but we aren't talking about just "finding" scriptural justification. We are talking about "obviously straining" to find scriptural justification. Common sense suggests that, if it was at all possible, an author would modify his idea if finding scriptural justification was important but incredibly difficult.

What sort of idea would be so resistant to modification as to result in "obviously straining" for a connection?

Marxist

We are not talking about any kind of 'task', but the task of creating fiction. If Mark for some reason didn't want to give up an idea because he was having trouble describing it in OT terms, there is no reason to suppose it is history. Perhaps Mark just really likes the idea. There is nothing "stupid" about this possibility.

One that Mark wouldn't want to give up easily, obviously.

Amaleq13

I think all authors would agree that creating fiction certainly qualifies as a task and deliberately making it more difficult than it has to be would be stupid.

I don't think you are reading my posts carefully enough because you have clearly misunderstood. I'm not assuming it must be history. I've stated repeatedly that historicity is simply the most obvious possible explanation given evidence of the author "obviously straining".

Suggesting that the author had "some reason" to hold the idea so strongly that he was willing to strain to create a scriptural connection isn't an argument and it really isn't even a position. It is a possibility but it isn't the most obvious. In defense of your insufficient specificity, we are dealing in hypotheticals here, so you really can't be more specific. I agree that it is theoretically possible to argue that the author was so fond of a particular scene that he couldn't bear to change it so as to make it easier to connect to Scripture. I think a stronger argument might be made that a particular scene was necessary for literary reasons but that, too, would require a specific example.

Again, I think you have misunderstood my point. What I have called "stupid" is the notion of making the task of writing the story more difficult than it needs to be. IOW, it is stupid to make writing the story difficult unless he had a really good reason. You are offering a reason, albeit not a very specific one, but historicity is clearly the most obvious possible explanation. Unless there are other problems with the story being historical (eg the Temple Disruption), I think you are going to be hard-pressed to argue against it without applying circular reasoning.

Marxist

Again, this is not a ‘task’ like moving something heavy from point A to point B. Doing something to make this more difficult would be stupid and pointless. Creating fiction, however, is not equivalent to this. If an author really wants his story to read a certain way, while casting it in OT terms, there is nothing stupid about keeping the difficult parts if they are important to the author. This is why your statement is misleading.

I know that.

And you’ve repeatedly failed to give any reason to believe this. There is no reason to believe he is restrained by history anymore than he is restrained by himself.

It is when we know the author has basically created his story completely out of fiction, and when we know the event in question is fiction by other means.

Amaleq13

Only if you are Stephen King. Otherwise, I think you are seriously underestimating the effort involved in writing for the vast majority of authors.

There is nothing misleading about my statement but you still appear to be misreading it even though I was quite explicit in my last post. You are offering what you consider to be a "really good reason" why it isn't more difficult than it has to be so you aren't actually disagreeing with my statement (please pay special attention to the part I have again put in bold):

"It is stupid to make writing the story difficult unless he had a really good reason."

The only point you appear to actually disagree with is that historicity is the most obvious explanation for an apparently strained connection. For some as-yet unstated reason, you think that the author's unknown personal preference is more obvious than the possibility he is dealing with history. Like I said before, you might be able to justify that with a specific example but we only have a hypothetical.

You continue to misunderstand. I said it was the "most obvious possible explanation". That doesn't necessarily mean it is the most believable but you are equating them.

I don't share your certainty. I strongly suspect the story is a fabrication but I'm open to evidence to the contrary. Perhaps that is why you don't find the possibility of historicity to be the most obvious explanation? You've already eliminated it from consideration. That seems to me to be circular reasoning but I think we've discovered the "unstated reason" for your disagreement with me.

I've already agreed with this but I doubt it will be possible for every example.

Meanwhile back on topic....

andrewcriddle

This seems to assume that Mark here has no important sources other than the OT which is what has to be demonstrated.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I can't see any significant verbal parallels between Mark and the Septuagint here, the leprosy is not immediately cleansed by Elisha but only after Naaman obeys his instructions, and the parallel between the leper carrying out the requirements to be declared clean, and Naaman's case of conscience about pagan worship seems extremely forced.

I can't see any significant verbal parallels between Mark and the Septuagint here, and you agree the story has a different structure. The parallel to the empty tomb may be significant but so it seems if anything to weaken the case for a basis in 2 Kings 1.

IMHO some of these arguments blur the line between the claim that if this narrative is based on the OT then this is the OT passage in question, and the claim that the passage is clearly based on the OT.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Andrew -- I'll get back to you probably on Saturday night here -- Sat morn your time.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Sorry about the delay! Meant to get back to you last night, but was wiped out by sun poisoning from hiking on the east coast of Taiwan.

I think a problem here is that the writer of Mark has paralleled the saga of Elijah and Elisha in 1 Kings. Some parallels will be strong. Others weak. If you disarticulate each parallel from that general understanding, the five references to Elijah in that pericope will not mean much....but i agree, there are actually a couple of models for this. Nevertheless, they are entirely OT/Jewish writing.

Seems like a pretty obvious parallel to me!

Mark 9
38: John said to him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." 39: But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.

Numbers
26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the Tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses' aide since youth, spoke up and said, "Moses, my lord, stop them!" 29 But Moses replied, "Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the LORD's people were prophets and that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!"(NIV)

Many exegetes have made this link

Well, it isn't entirely from Zechariah, as it has numerous other OT, Hellenistic and ANE precedents. But it's pretty much a convention of history and fiction.

The writer of Mark has many references to plundered and destroyed temples. The Ba'al temple is a good parallel in my view (it is the by far the best one in the Elijah-Elisha sequence); not only is a Temple cleansed at the climax of the cycle, but here the writer of Mark has turned the leadership of the temple into the priests of Ba'al. The kind of rhetorical move is the type of irony that the writer of Mark loves. The parallel continues, for like Elijah, who must confront the authorities, the priests of Ba'al, so Jesus must confront the authorities and who by inference must be the priests of Ba'al. Brodie identifies this as continuing in Mark 12.

In any case the verses are all built from the OT. There are also echoes of the Maccabees. There's no question -- this is fiction built off of the OT.

It's not great, but it is there. The widow gives money, and the money is not used for venal purposes. Both the giving of money, and its non-use for venal purposes appear in the sequence in 2 Kings

IMO it is entirely Markan. The parallels with 2 Kings are:

Jesus gives instructions to his disciples
Jehu gives instructions to his people to gather the priests of Ba'al.

no stone on another
Great stone of Temple of Ba'al thrown down

Jerusalem Temple destroyed
Temple of Ba'al destroyed

abomination standing in temple
Ba'al Temple used as latrine

In any case the relevant fact is that it is composed of anachronistic prophecies and OT rewriting. Hence, it is fiction regardless of source.

Here's the parallel, just three points. There's probably more.....

Jesus is in a house
Jehu is in a house

Jesus is annointed by the woman of Bethany
Jehu is annointed King over Israel

Some present rebuke old woman
Jehu's officers rebuke him

It comes from 1 Sam indirectly, because it is a doublet of Mark 11:1-11, which IS based on 1 Sam.

But the writer of Luke did, for he went back to Kings and not only grabbed the angel from 1 Kings 19, but also got more language from the Septuagint. The relationship to Psalm 78 was spotted by Jeff Gibson and seconded by Ted Weeden in an exchange on BGreek several years ago.

Weeden argued this, and Brown gives it prominence in DotM though he naturally doesn't opt for it. I have added a couple of parallels to it. The parallels are quite close.

Jesus is about to be rejected and executed
David has been rejected by the people in favor Absalom

Jesus heads for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by disciples
David makes for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by retainers

Jesus leaves 8 disciples behind and takes two with him a little way, and then leaves them.
David leaves his retainers behind and sends three of his men back to Jerusalem.

Jesus is sorrowful unto death
David is weeping for his horrible fate

Someone cuts off the servant of the High Priest's ear. (in other gospels the parallel is completed, and the would-be killer is told to put away his sword) Abishai asks David's permission to behead Shimei, who has mocked David, but David refuses.

Jesus says Peter will deny him
David says Shimei was sent by God to revile him.

and I added as a possible parallel:

A young man betrays Jesus by running away
A young man betrays David by informing on his followers.

Dan 6 was adduced by Helms in Gospel Fictions:

The chief priests and scribes try to trap Jesus with arguments over the law The satraps and adminstrators trap Daniel with a law

Joseph of Arimathea, a leader of the nation opposed to the spokesman for the people of God secretly reveres Jesus (as Pilate becomes steadily more Christianized in Christian legend, he assumes this role)
Darius a leader of the nation opposed to the spokesman for the people of God secretly reveres Daniel

the death of Jesus is required by law (implied in Mark)
the death of Daniel is required by the law of the Medes and Persians

Pilate is reluctant to execute Jesus, tries to convince crowd to let him go Darius is reluctant to put Daniel in the lion's den, Darius exerts himself until evening to save Daniel

Pilate, though distressed, is forced to put Jesus in a tomb
Darius, though distressed, is forced to put Daniel into a lion's den

Joseph of Arimathea looks forward to the kingdom of God
Dairus tells Daniel his god will save him

At dawn, as soon as it was light, the women who cared deeply for Jesus go to his tomb
Just after sunrise Darius who cares deeply for Daniel goes to the lion's den.

Joyful news: Jesus is raised!
Joyful news: Daniel lives

A mysterious young man, perhaps an angel, announces the news
An angel shut the lion's mouths

The parallel from 1 Kings I got from Price:

Mark 16: 6-8 2 Kgs 13: 20-1
The dead are raised The dead are raised
(young man at tomb) (the raised man on his feet)
the women are frightened the pallbearers are frightened
the tomb is Jesus' the tomb is Elisha's

Ludeman has argued that 16:5 (young man) parallels the young men in front of the Temple in 2 Macc 3:26 while Karel Hanhart has argued that Gen 29:3 lies behind 16:3. The angel of Tobit, a story about proper burial, may also be here. <shrug> Hard to say for sure.

Anyway, what we are really arguing about is: Is Mark sources + communities, or conventions + creativity? I believe the latter.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

Do the cases where the parallels between Mark and the OT are strengthened in later accounts argue for an OT origin or against such an origin ?

IMHO if the earliest account has less parallels to the OT than a later account it suggests that an account deriving from some other source has been progressively assimilated to the OT.

Andrew Criddle