andrewcriddle

I'll go through this in detail to illustrate my concerns about why the two stories are different in basic structure

Jehu.................................Jesus

In house alone....................In house at public meal

Secret anointing..................Public anointing

unambiguous meaning...........ambiguous meaning

leaves house........................remains in house

secret anointing questioned....public anointing condemned

explanation reluctantly given...explanation volunteered


Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

What exactly makes that a better explanation, except fiat? It seems to me that if Mark just made up a "fictional event" and then began "straining" he'd just change elements to eliminate the strain. Though Bede may be overstating his case by calling it evidence of history, and "strain" isn't much of a quantitative measure, if "strain" could be quantified, it would seem more reasonable to rule it pre-Markan than to follow your lead.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Thanks Andrew...you've just posted a list in which every single parallel is inverted. Doesn't that strike you as -- to use some colorful local language -- "straining" coincidence?

That's one way to look at it, but it assumes progressive assimilation rather than story development. I mean, we can see the development -- the story is right in front of us -- but progressive assimilation has to be assumed. The problem again stems from our radically different suppositions about how this text is to be appreciated.

This raises some interesting questions about Luke's use of Mark. Luke is clearly anxious to situate his Jesus in history, unlike Mark. If Luke really thought that he was dealing with a historical event, why did he further assimilate it to an OT source? Wouldn't you expect just the opposite, that Luke would pare it down to its historical nub? The ancients knew as well as we do that stories accumulate and expand.....no, Luke's action in heading back to the Septuagint to get more Greek language and to add the angel is striking evidence that Luke knowingly wrote ahistorical nonsense.

I've been maintaining that Luke is deliberate historicization of a text the writer of Luke knew to be not historical. Here's strong evidence.

BTW, Helms argues that Matt recognized Mark's dependence on Dan 6 for the crucifixion, tomb, and resurrection scene, for the details he used to expand it are drawn from Daniel, including Daniel 6. Also, I should add that Daniel 6 is apparently echoed by Mark in 14:55, which looks very much like Dan 6:4

• Daniel 6:4 At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so.
  
  Mark 14:55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.

Mark likes referring to the passages he parallels.

I'd just like to thank you for engaging with this. All of your comments have been enormously helpful in prodding me to understand my own view of Mark further. I bet your own students think you're a wonderful teacher.

Vorkosigan