Vorkosigan

Well, it is hard for me to imagine that some community transmitted these as "traditions." Especially that the community transmitted a series of traditions that ultimately makes Jesus a creation of 1 & 2 Kings, with relevant citations.

William Farmer in his article wrote in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus that seven assumptions underpin HJ research:

• 1. Historical existence: Jesus actually existed, and is not a myth.
  2. Sanity of Jesus: historical studies assume Jesus was a sane individual.
  3. Integrity of Jesus: Jesus did not intentionally deceive his followers.
  4. individuals in the primitive Church remembered Jesus: Of this Farmer writes:
  
  That Jesus was remembered in the Church by those who had known him is intrinsically probable from virtually every point of view, but since it has never been demonstrated it needs to be listed as something assumed in any investigation of the "aims of Jesus."(p61-2)
  
  5. late date of gospels : written at least a generation after Jesus
  6. within the tradition preserved in the gospels, the memory of Jesus is preserved
  7. It is possible to distinguish between what was remembered about Jesus and what has been added.

Note that none of these are demonstrated by appeal to argument and evidence. They are ALL assumed. So I think here our respective takes on Mark part ways. In my analysis of Mark I have rejected all seven of the above list (which actually incorporate many more assumptions -- for example, that the writer knew of traditions and that he used them) and asked that they be demonstrated one way or another using evidence and argument. The way I read your comments, you seem to accept these assumptions. I agree that it is plausible that the Water Walk could have been created by a community and handed down through tradition. The problem is that there is no method for demonstrating that.

The default assumption must be that anything in Mark is a creation of Mark, for the simple reason that Mark is the first place we encounter so many of these tales. The only exceptions would be things for which we have external evidence (Pilate, JBap), but even their role must be viewed as something requiring evidence and argument to establish.

Maybe not. I see John as a marriage of two different Gospels, one a synoptic mirror, the other the discourses. I see no reason that the second could not predate the first.

There is no pre-Markan Church, Andrew. The "Church" is a collection of communities, "some who follow Apollos, some Paul, some Christ." In Mark's time there was no narrative of Jesus' life. He filled gap...

....hence I would argue the plausibility issue is just the opposite. Mark's idea of creating a narrative life of Jesus was so great it caught fire, and people went on to produce a couple dozen. Some people even borrowed directly from him. Nature abhors a vacuum, and into the vacuum of history stepped Mark. Once someone thought of it -- and it seems natural, since biographies were a staple of Hellenistic writing -- it would seem like an idea whose time had come. One could just as well ask why it took at least 40 years to put together a biography....

Let's put this another way. What reason do you see to infer traditions as Mark's sources?

Who is "Mark?"

But why should they, as the name was added to the gospel after the middle of the second century? Why should someone trace their history back to a nameless writer?

I think we all know what those reasons are. The gospel that Papias describes is nothing like the one we have, and the story he tells is a preposterous bit of legendizing, probably designed to Petrinize a Pauline text.

I'll get to the rest tomorrow.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

I think one has to be clear about what one means by a default assumption here and how one is using it.

It might be appropriate to avoid making firm judgments that specific pieces of Mark without earlier and/or independent corroboration are prior to Mark. (ie saying that since a substantial amount of Mark is Markan invention and we have no reliable internal grounds for distinguishing Markan creation from pre-Markan material, the only safe course is to doubt the pre-Markan status of all uncorroborated Markan material.)

This is IMO quite separate from a positive claim that almost all of the uncorroborated material in Mark is Markan invention.

(Neusner has plausibly claimed that for the purposes of the history of Jewish thought nothing in the Babylonian Talmiud without earlier and/or independent corroboration can safely be dated before the redaction of the Babylonian Talmud c 500-600 CE. However, this is not a claim that almost all this material was created around then, which would be highly unlikely, it is a claim that a lot was, we can't tell which and hence for solid conclusions we must avoid assuming the earlier origin of any of it.)
I agree that I am presuming that there was a continuing group of Christian believers between Paul and Mark. But frankly the alternatives seem highly unlikely.

If such a group existed and if it had refrained from developing its views about Jesus in the period between Paul and Mark, then it seems unlikely that it would have been happy to do so drastically at the time of Mark.

In a sense I'm suggesting that if the Church had avoided creating narratives about Jesus for 40 years then it seems unlikely that Mark suddenly doing so on a massive scale would have been welcome or acceptable. In other words although I agree that Mark is the first surviving biographical work about Jesus I think it unlikely that until Mark there were no narratives about Jesus.

(You seem IIUC to be adopting a 'punctuated equilibrium' view of Christian History in which things are normally almost unchanging but with sudden periods of rapid change. If I'm understanding you correctly then IMO such a position needs justification it is not prima facie particularly plausible.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I mentioned before that there seems to me to be a significant difference between "developing views" and written narrative. I see nothing about Mark's story that should be labelled "drastic". If we assume AMk represents a group and that they accepted an essentially Pauline theology and that any non-Pauline beliefs expressed in the story were held by the group, I see no reason why they would have a problem with this remarkable written narrative inspired by their faith. In fact, given Pauline faith that the fundamental tenets of the belief system were "according to Scripture", I see no problem assuming they were willing to believe the story was historically true (if such a notion would have occurred to them).

Is it just as unlikely if we assume that there was much unsubstantiated, oral speculation during those 40 years?

Aren't you simply assuming that Mark's story isn't entirely a fictional creation in order to conclude it is unlikely that Mark's story is?

The fact that there is no evidence of earlier biographical information is why the possibility that Mark's story is entirely fiction is viable.

John A. Broussard

A parallel case would be the Homer's Illiad. It is clearly fiction, it is clearly based on earlier oral tales, it has clearly been demonstrated to have a small core of truth. Fortunately, no one these days is basing an entire religious tradition upon it.

andrewcriddle

I don't think so.

What I think I'm saying is that the idea that Mark is almost entirely a fictional creation by Mark is prima facie less likely than either i/ the idea that Mark is substantially based on tradition going back to very early times or ii/ the idea that Mark is substantially based on earlier fictional creations.

In case i/ we have a community that is reluctant to create narratives about Jesus and a Mark who is similarly reluctant to create narratives about Jesus.

In case ii/ we have a community that is given to creating fictional narratives about Jesus and a Mark who continues such creation.

If however, Mark is almost entirely a fictional creation by Mark then we have a community that has previously been very reluctant to create narratives about Jesus but which happily accepts Mark doing so on a very large scale.

I just don't find this plausible. The only way I could regard it as plausible is if strong reasons were given as to why creation of narratives about Jesus was discouraged by the early Christian community say before the fall of Jerusalem but encouraged afterwards. (I'm using the fall of Jerusalem as a possibly significant event at roughly the right time, but it is only meant as an example.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Case ii is close to what I've been suggesting though I would word it:

We have a community that was speculating about Jesus by reading Scripture and a Mark who decided to create a coherent narrative incorporating the Scriptural speculations.

Vorkosigan

But....that's almost all Markan material.

Ok....I see your position is very nuanced. Your position is that the default assumption should be the old verdict of Unproven. You're Scottish, right?

I think the reason I believe that the uncorroborated material is all Markan is the extreme tight structure of Mark which at every level indicates that the front and back ends of the gospel are planned as a whole. Neil Godfrey's description of Mark as wheels within wheels is very apt. Another reason is of course the structuring effects of the OT parallel stories.

I understand this. But Mark was written as a whole by a single author. It is my understanding that the Babylonian Talmud is not a whole and was not written by a single author.

Why? The question urges itself every time continuity is postulated. Why would Mark, if he had real traditions about Jesus from the community, why would he choose to create out of parallels to the OT? Further, if Mark actually knew the Paulines -- and that seems highly likely to me -- then the question of any community is solved.

So the obvious conclusion is that there was no community and Mark's gospel is an autonomous invention of its author. Your logic cuts both ways. If there is a community, there is no need for OT parallels. Nor do I believe that they would be preserved.

I think this term "narratives" is a bit tricky. Suppose the narrative was a descent-ascent narrative that took place in the heavens above, as Doherty has more or less proposed. Hays has argued that Gal 3-4 looks a lot like a nascent narrative. Then Mark did not invent so much as evolve: he placed this narrative in a concretized geographical landscape where places have sacred and allegorical functions and each action presages Jesus' own death and rising. Mark's Palestine is Doherty's "sphere of the flesh" given shape and form. Then Matthew took the next step, filling in Mark's gaps and expanding his framework and getting rid of Mark's concept of Jesus-as-initiate and possessed by God, but still taking no steps to nail Jesus to history. Finally Luke comes along with his Nth year of the reign of Tiberius and his reference to the Census of Qurinius, and BINGO! Yes, folks, we HAVE AN HJ!

No, I am postulating a very smooth incremental evolution of the idea of the HJ from the ascent-descent narrative inherent in Paul's non-historical view of Jesus to the Jesus of History that Luke created. Each step, with the exception of the mutant Gospel of John, which seems to have died without offspring, a hopeless monster, leads inexorably to an historical HJ. Earl, are you listening? This is the back end of your theory RIGHT HERE!

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Why doesn't the notion of a community speculating about Jesus by studying Scripture address both sides? Andrew's concerns about a lack of precedent disappear as do your concerns about a need for OT parallels. The author is the guy who decided to put it all together into a coherent narrative.

andrewcriddle

Hi Vorkosigan

How far does your model for Mark require something like Doherty's interpretation of Paul ?

Would it be possible to plausibly restate it with a Paul who say knew of a recent Historical Jesus but was uninterested in the details of his earthly life ?

Or is your model for Mark really not compatible with any type of original Historical Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Why "recent" and how about, instead:

Would it be possible to plausibly restate it with a Paul who assumed a Historical Jesus but was uninterested in and knew nothing about the details of his earthly life?