JoeWallack

JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to Inventory evidence that "Mark" intended to write a significantly Fictional narrative. This is an expansion of my previous Thread:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction

We begin once again with superior Skeptic correspondent Neal Godfree:

Matthew’s “misunderstanding” of Mark’s miracle stories

JW:
Neal notes the following characteristics of the individual story which are evidence of intentional Fiction:

1) Jesus passing the Disciples and expecting them to follow him is a Theme of the Gospel as a whole.

2) The Disciples fail to Recognize Jesus and have no Faith in him. Themes of the Gospel as a whole.

3) The destination is Bethsaida = House of fishing, another in a long list of Contrived names.

4) "Matthew" takes "Mark's" story as too fictional and exorcises the most fictional parts (in his mind).



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

neilgodfrey

Well I have no idea who this Neal Godfree character might be, but a certain Neil Godfrey did once write something about the fictional character of the gospel of Mark and linked to it here.

I have good inside info that since he wrote that, however, he has been planning on writing a series of other posts that point out the factual and logical errors in those arguments contra. The mere fact that ancient bios used some of the same techniques found in the gospels by no means puts the gospels in the same category as "ancient biography". There is one fundamental difference between ancient biography and the gospels: ancient biographies express a demonstrable interest in the central character and person as a character and person. The gospels, on the contrary, do not.

Will get out of the way for now,
Niall

Malachi151

Its an interesting interpretation, i.e. that Jesus is going to pass them by because he expects them to follow him, however there are other things that need to be taken into consideration.

One also needs to consider the passing by as a theophany based on scriptural tradition referring to Jesus being the Lord:

I would say that it is possible, however, that its not a theophany identifying Jesus as the Lord, especially since this would be the only scene in the Gospel of Mark to identify Jesus as the Lord.

One also needs to consider the possibility that the scene is based on Isaiah 43:

JoeWallack

JW:
Could be a reference to. I think though that the passing by the Disciples on water story is "Mark" fleshing out a narrative based on Paul. The water and specifically the Sea of Galilee represents the divide between Jews and Gentiles. The historical disciples were based on the Law and therefore would not tell Gentiles that they could be Jewish without following the Law. They were resistant to "crossing" the water to recruit Gentiles because they knew Gentiles were resistant to following the Law. Paul's solution was to emphasize "Faith" instead of the Law which was acceptable to the Gentiles. "Mark" took the historical Paul's attitude towards the Gentiles and ascribed it to his Jesus.

Of course it's comical that the son of god would not be able to persuade his hand-picked disciples of, let alone even have them understand, his attitude towards Gentiles in the course of his entire Ministry. Why not just replace them? Paul replaced them, except he was not picked by Jesus, he picked himself. "Mark" than wrote the script for why the Disciples needed to be replaced.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Malachi151

I agree with this. This also fits my interpretation of the two feeding scenes, where one takes place on one side of the "sea" an the other on the other side.

The one that takes place on the "Jewish" side is the one where Jesus produces 12 baskets. The one on the other side is where Jesus produces 7 baskets. As I have read that all along, 12 is symbolic of The Twelve Tribes of Israel and 7 is symbolic of The Seven Hills of Rome.

JoeWallack

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6

JW:
The five loaves represent the 5 books of the Torah. The two fishes represent the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus is breaking down the Jewish Bible so that the Spirit can be "digested" by the people. The "Twelve" represents Israel. Note that the leftovers were saved.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_7

JW:
The Transition for the Mission to the Gentiles. "Mark's" Jesus has the Mission to the Gentiles explained to him by a Gentile woman. Note that "Matthew" interprets the story as a test of the woman's Faith. "Syrophoenician" refers to Paul I think and his Damascus road tripping conversion to the Gentiles.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

JW:
The number seven represented wholeness and completion as in the seven days of creation. "come from far" indicates that this crowd includes Gentiles.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
One of the best examples of intentional Fiction in "Mark":

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_7

JW:
The first step is to try and determine exactly what "Mark" meant for the offending word translated above as "diligently":

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...pter=7&verse=3

"οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων"

Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
πυγμῇ (2) πυγμή (3) Noun a fist
Parsing Dative Singular Feminine
Related Words None found.
Context in Mark 7:3 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ ... νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ
Strongs # 4435 the clenched hand, i.e. (only in dative case as adverb) with the fist (hard scrubbing)

JW:
Here we see that according to Zhubert the Lexical entry for the offending word πυγμῇ is "fist":


Thayer's

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 4435 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pugme from a primary pux (the fist as a weapon)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pugme 6:915,973
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
poog-may' Noun Feminine
Definition

1. the fist, clenched hand
2. up to the elbow

NAS Word Usage - Total: 1
carefully 1


LSJ (from Perseus)

πυγμ-ή , h(, (πύξ)
A. fist, Hp.Art.71, E.IT1368; “τῇ π. θενών” Ar.V. 1384; “πυγμῇ πατάξαι” LXX Ex.21.18, cf. Is.58.4.
2. boxing, as an athletic contest, “πυγμῇ νικήσαντα” Il.23.669; “πυγμὴν νικᾶν” E.Alc.1031; “ἄνδρας πυγμὰν ἐνίκα Ὀλύμπια” AP6.256 (Antip.); “πυγμᾶς ἄποινα” Pi. O.7.16, cf. 10(11).67; πυγμὴν or τὴν π. ἀσκεῖν, Pl.Lg.795b, D.61.24; freq. in Inscrr., e.g. πυγμὴν Ζωΐλος (sc. ἐνίκησε) IG7.1765 (Thespiae), etc.
b. generally, fight, π. μονομάχων καὶ θηρίων Edict.Caes. ap. J.AJ14.10.6, cf. Artem.5.58; εἰς π. καθίστασθαι, τρέπεσθαι, of partridges, Gp.14.20.1,2.
3. in Ev.Marc.7.3, πυγμῇ νίψασθαι is interpr. diligently (v.l. πυκνά, often).
II. a measure of length, the distance from the elbow to the knuckles,= 18 δάκτυλοι, Thphr.HP9.11.5, Poll.2.147,158.

Moving to Danker's "A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature" Third Edition (BDAG) as an illustration which I think would generally be thought of as one of the best Lexicons available for the Christian Bible. On page 896 the only defining words in bold are "fist" and "fist-fight" and every example except one shows a meaning of "fist" or fist-related. The one exception is:

"in a difficult pass. εαν μη πυγμη νιψωνται τας χει�?ας lit. unless they wash their hands with (the) fist Mk 7:3 where the v.l. πυκνα [s. πυκνος] is substituted for π. [Vulgate crebro], thus alleviating the difficulty by focusing on the vigor of the action."

Thus every available Lexicon seems to agree that πυγμῇ always means "fist" except for Mark 7:3!

We have the following evidence that the "πυγμη" of Mark 7:3 should be translated as "fist":

1) Outside of Mark 7:3 I don't believe there is any meaning of "πυγμη" that is not "fist" related for this time period.

2) Since the context is washing hands "fist" can obviously be related to the context.

3) Scribe Reaction. A few later, inferior manuscripts have "πυκνα", "often". A good guess for this is that copyists recognized that "unless they wash their hands with (the) fist" was unrecognizable as to what exactly Jesus was referring to and so they guessed that an earlier scribal error was made and the original word was something close to the same spelling:

πυγμη = fist
πυκνα = often

with "often" being a recognizable reason for Jesus' lecture. But Danker's Lexicon is supposed to be a Lexicon and not a Textual Variation guide. Holy BapsonofMan! If (the) holy spirit is a contributing editor to Danker why doesn't he/she/it/them? get any credit?

This Christianable Guess allows LFJ to claim that "often" is in a respected Lexicon thus defending against claimed error in CB's mistranslating "often" instead of the correct "fist".

4) "Matthew"/"Luke" Reaction. Both have exorcised "Mark's" reference and I'm pretty sure both knew Greek and recognized that the Greek word for "fist" meant "fist".

5) And, the NT Cruncher as Roger Pearse would say, the Context of "Mark" here makes "fist" a perfect fit:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_7

JW:
"Mark's" Jesus has explained that Ritual only cleans the outside for appearance sake, but you can still be "dirty" on the inside. Deeds are what cleans the inside, which is the important part, not Ritual. Ritual therefore, can be an obstacle to being Spiritually clean.

Thus we have it on good authority that "Mark" likely choose a word here which always means "fist" because he intended to mean "fist". "The Jews" ritually washed with clenched hands but it only cleaned the outside, not the inside. An inspired lesson by "Mark" if you take it Figuratively. On the other hand (so to speak) trying to take 7:3 Literally is one of Christianities worst moments as think how many Christians have died because they didn't wash their hands before they ate.



Joseph

LEXICOGRAPHER, n.
A pestilent fellow who, under the pretense of recording some particular stage in the development of a language, does what he can to arrest its growth, stiffen its flexibility and mechanize its methods. For your lexicographer, having written his dictionary, comes to be considered "as one having authority," whereas his function is only to make a record, not to give a law. The natural servility of the human understanding having invested him with judicial power, surrenders its right of reason and submits itself to a chronicle as if it were a statue. Let the dictionary (for example) mark a good word as "obsolete" or "obsolescent" and few men thereafter venture to use it, whatever their need of it and however desirable its restoration to favor -- whereby the process of improverishment is accelerated and speech decays. On the contrary, recognizing the truth that language must grow by innovation if it grow at all, makes new words and uses the old in an unfamiliar sense, has no following and is tartly reminded that "it isn't in the dictionary" -- although down to the time of the first lexicographer (Heaven forgive him!) no author ever had used a word that was in the dictionary. In the golden prime and high noon of English speech; when from the lips of the great Elizabethans fell words that made their own meaning and carried it in their very sound; when a Shakespeare and a Bacon were possible, and the language now rapidly perishing at one end and slowly renewed at the other was in vigorous growth and hardy preservation -- sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion -- the lexicographer was a person unknown, the dictionary a creation which his Creator had not created him to create.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

the_cave

This is all quite interesting and probably correct, but I fail to see how it's relevant to the question of fiction in Mark.

jules?

Is this your own conclusion? because if it is I am impressed especially as the whole feeding thousands and walking on water sub-plot has appeared to be meaningless. It may not be the truth but it is a good attempt and the best I have heard.

Malachi151

Yeah, and I discuss this interpretation in my article (book) on the Gospel of Mark: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm