JoeWallack

JW:
Background Assumption:
Since "Mark" is primarily a story of Impossible events the work as a whole must be Fiction. Therefore, Possible information in the story, such as Names, should be Doubted as Historical more than Names used in a story primarily of the Possible with all other factors being equal.

General categories indicative of Fiction are:

1) Names that have meanings/spellings that are or at least are close to themes/points of the Author.

2) Multiple use of the same Name supportive of themes/points of the Author.

3) Names which are the same or similar to famous people or objects at the time written.

4) Presentation of Names in Unusual way.

Now that we are loaded up for Bar, onto the Story:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

1
1:"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

JW:
"Jesus Christ", hmmm, "Christ" in the Greek looks to be the genitive of "anointed". I'd call that unusual. "Son of God" also looks to be Forged which is not necessarily unusual by Early Church standards.



Joseph

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

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

Riverwind

What are you saying? I think you need to elaborate on why "Christ" and "son of God" in Mark are a problem. Thanks.

Doug Shaver

That looks to me more like your conclusion than like an assumption.

JoeWallack

JW:
Normally names of the time would first or at least at some point, be presented as Jesus, son of so and so. "Mark" doesn't do this. Note that "Matthew" and "Luke" apparently thought he should have. Of course this doesn't prove that "Jesus" is a fictitious name and it's not even good evidence that it is. On the contrary, this is one of the few peaces of information regarding the hero of the Christian Bible that seems to be unanimous, his name was "Jesus" (you do have the problem here though that no one was sure what Jesus' given name was (Hebrew/Aramaic) and that "Jesus" in Greek means nothing - Lord I like the way that sounds).

The point is that here "Mark" is not presenting a name (Jesus) in the usual, Historical way. It's just mild evidence that in general "Mark" may be more interested in Fiction than History regarding other Names in his Story.

My observation that "son of God" is generally not thought to be original is just a side comment and not directly relevant to the Theme of this Thread.



Joseph

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

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

Solo

What is the source of certainty then that "Jesus Christ" was in the original first verse of Mark ?

Jiri

Riverwind

I disagree. This was not always the practice, especially for names considered to be of unique importance.

Unless you are unfamiliar with the topic, this seems like an overstatement. Scholars that I am aware of are quite sure what Jesus name was. What they were unsure of was the exact form it took...Yehoshua, Yehsua, Yeshu... You are correct that "Jesus" means nothing in Greek, but that is because it is an obvious attempt at transliteration of Hebrew into Greek. "Jesus" is well known because the Septuagint and Josephus both refer to people named "Jesus". The Septuagint's reference, of course, is to "Joshua, son of Nun". It seems obvious that the Jesus of the New Testament also bore this name, we just aren't absolutely sure what form it took, as I mentioned before.

I haven't seen anything presented yet that makes me think that Mark is writing fiction.

JoeWallack

JW:
It certainly is my conclusion. What I Am trying to do here though is open up the Thread to Skeptics who accept that even though it is extremely Unlikely, it's Possible that the Impossible may be Possible (accept the Possibility of the Supernatural).

I present the above Assertion than only as an Assumption and not a Conclusion so that I am testing a hypothesis the same as a Detective may try to solve a murder by assuming a guilty party and than judging how well evidence fits that Assumption. For those here than who think it Likely that "Mark" is primarily Fiction I invite them to Judge for themselves how "Mark's" presentation of Names in his Gospel fits/doesn't fit that hypothesis (that it's Fiction).

I do want to make the broader point though that in my opinion Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship is seriously flawed in being officially neutral on the subject of the Impossible when in fact that is the issue that has the most certainty in Bible scholarship (that the Impossible is Impossible). As a result, issues such as the subject in this Thread have not been adequately examined by Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship.



Joseph

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

Gamera

The assumption appears to be false by any standard. Mark is primarilly a story of humdrum events and speeches, with an occasional impossible event thrown in.

In this it sounds no more fictional than any biography of the time, which generally threw in omens and premonitions and divine interventions to explain events, especially the events surrounding the lives of great leaders.

And if you want to talk about impossible events, read Herodotus, the father of history, and his rendition of 300 Spartans holding off an army of over 2 million Persians.

JoeWallack

Glory Days


JW:
The External evidence (Texts & Patristic) looks unanimous. "Jesus Christ" does not look out of place here with the Internal evidence so I think it Likely original.

The potential Internal controversy is that "Mark" looks to be Separationist with Jesus being the human portion and Christ being the Spirit portion. Ehrman has demonstrated in The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture the tendency of Orthodox Christianity to Forge "Christ" into the text as part of the reference to Jesus in order to argue against the Gnostics that "Mark" was not Separationist. The offending verse:

1
1:"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

is an Editorial comment and not Narrative. Editorial comments are obviously for the benefit of the Reader and not the Characters. "Mark" has a major Theme of the Reader being the Audience Contrast to the Characters (mainly the Disciples). The Reader is given important information that the Characters are not given. The Reader can learn from the Characters miStakes. The Reader understands what the Characters were never able to understand. Understand dear Reader? "Matthew" and "Luke" understood and they made their Characters understand.

The point here is that "Jesus Christ" tells the Reader at the Start that Jesus is the Christ so the Reader immediately knows what the Characters do not. Therefore, "Jesus Christ" in verse 1 is Internally consistent. Later in the Story the Characters do learn that Jesus is the Christ but than they don't understand what that means. They want a glorious Messiah on the throne of David in Jerusalem. When they understand that's not going to happen they depart for places unknown. The Reader though is there at the end and Witnesses Jesus' Glory up on his Throne of the Cross. This is why "Mark" has no glorious post resurrection reunion. The Glory days have already passed over.



Joseph

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

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

Doug Shaver

Then you're arguing in a circle.

To assert that the impossible is, or even may be, possible is to assert a contradiction, which is contrary to logic. Skeptics are supposed to know better.