JoeWallack

Bede:
"Mark actively wants to see his Jesus as a prophet in OT style"

"Give me a newspaper story and I'll retell it using nothing but phrases from Shakespeare or the Bible. I once got sixteen of the former into the Crosstalk post that finally silenced the MacDonald thesis."


JW:
Now your "Mark" doesn't sound so much like a simple fisherman. Simple people of the time would give simple descriptions, not sophisticated Interpretations. Vork has provided more specific examples to support his conclusion than the Vatican has smoke signals. Now let's see you retell the Jewish Bible with a Prophet who only speaks to the people in Parables, keeps his identity a secret and is not believed after performing incredible miracles and tie it all together with Amazing irony. Go!



Joseph

Bede

JW:
Now your "Mark" doesn't sound so much like a simple fisherman. Simple people of the time would give simple descriptions, not sophisticated Interpretations. Vork has provided more specific examples to support his conclusion than the Vatican has smoke signals. Now let's see you retell the Jewish Bible with a Prophet who only speaks to the people in Parables, keeps his identity a secret and is not believed after performing incredible miracles and tie it all together with Amazing irony. Go!

Joseph, that is exactly what Vork has shown. His MArk is a literary genius with a passion for obscure structures.

B

Amaleq13

Is there an equivalent inherent plausibility for these individuals to have used these sources as there is for Mark's author to use Hebrew Scripture to write about his Messiah? Otherwise, none of these would appear to be relevant.

Bede

As I mean nothing of the sort, the question does not arise.

There is a vast amount of reference to the OT in Mark. No one is denying that. What I am saying is:

a) Many of the links postulated by Michael are not really there;
b) The presense of even the real links does not mean the narrative is fiction because it is perfectly possible to forge links to a pre-existing narrative (as I showed with all those other examples);
c) If Mark is obviously straining to find a link (as he might be doing with the Temple ruckus) then that straining is actually evidence that Mark did not invent the incident.

So not all Michaels premises hold up, his conclusion doesn't follow from them anyway and the evidence probably says the opposite of what he things.

Basically, it is just the MacDonald fallacy made slightly more convincing by the fact that the OT is clearly part of Mark's background whereas Homer probably isn't.

Best wishes

Bede

andrewcriddle

I've gone through Vorkosigan's list making comments.

I hope it is clear which comment attaches to which bit of Mark.

I may have been over brief but there were a lot of passages to go through.

Some of the parallels like
Mark 3:1-6....1 Kings 13:4-6
Mark 5:1-20...Isaiah 65:1-7
were both new to me and rather plausible.

Some I already knew about and found plausible
Some I already knew about and found implausible

Some were new to me and IMO not very likely.


Pericope...OT Frame (verse origin)

1:1-8..........NONE KNOWN (OT parallels)
1:9-11........(OT Parallels)
1:12-13......1 Kings 19, The Fall
This may well be symbolic, but not clearly from a specific OT parallel.
1:14-20......1 Kings 19:19-21 (Galilee Isa (9:1)
This might be created from the OT parallel in Kings but the differences are as important as the similarities. IMO this passage is based on a much older tradition that the disciples were previously Galilean fishermen, its present form may be heavily influenced by the OT.
1:21-28......(many OT/Jewish lit echoes)
1:29-39......NONE KNOWN
1:40-45......2 Kings 5, Nm 5:1-2
I don’t see this as really based on the OT at all.
2:1-12........2 Kings 1:2-17
Only trivial parallels
2:13-17......1 Kings 19:19-21
Much weaker resemblances than in 1:14-20
2:18-22......CHREIA SAYING
2:23-28......(v25=2 Sam 15-16)
(Obviously v 25 is based on the OT so what ?)
3:1-6..........1 Kings 13:4-6
This may well be based on the OT
3:7-12........Invention
3:13-19......Exodus 18:2-26
I don’t see this as really based on the OT at all.
3:20-30......(Zech 3:13), Exodus 18:2-26
Do you mean Zechariah 2:13 ? In any case I can’t really see the parallel.
3:31-35......CHREIA SAYING, Exodus 18:2-26
I don’t see this as really based on the OT at all.
4:1-20........(many to OT/Hellenistic culture)
4:21-25......SAYING (OT/Jewish parallels)
4:26-29......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:30-34......SAYING (OT parallels)
4:35-41......Jonah through Psalm 107
This may well be based on the OT
5:1-20........(Isa 65:1-7)
This may well be based on the OT but I’m pretty sure it is originally pre-Markan.
5:21-43.....2 Kings 4:8-37
There is a long debate between me and Steven Carr on uk.religion.christian (In the groups.google archive) as to why I think this alleged parallel is invalid.
6:1-6..........CHREIA SAYING
6:7-13........MISSION CHARGE (CYNIC)
6:14-29......Esther
There clearly is an influence from Esther but the story also has a historical basis of some sort.
6:30-44......2 Kings 4:38-44
The narrative has been heavily influenced by the OT but I doubt if it was originally created from the OT
6:45-56......(Psalm 77, Isa 43, Job 9)
This may well be based on the OT but is IMO pre-Markan.
7:1-23........(many OT, anachronism)
7:24-30......Elijah-Elisha echoes, CHREIA SAYING
7:31-37......Isa 35:5-6
I doubt if this is based on the OT
8:1-13........2 Kings 4:38-44
The narrative has been heavily influenced by the OT but I doubt if it was originally created from the OT.
8:14-21......Non-Markan
8:22-26......Interpolation based on 7:31-7
8:27-33......Invention (Peter's Confession)
8:34-38......Hellenistic Philosophical Concepts
9:1-13........2 Kings 1, other OT
This may well be symbolic, but not clearly from a specific OT parallel
9:14-29......NONE KNOWN
9:30-37......Invention (2nd passion prediction
9:38-41......Num 11:26-29
I’m uncertain here but on the whole I don’t think this is based on the OT
9:42-50......(Isa, Num, Lev)
10:1-12......OT, CHREIA (Paul on Divorce)
10:13-16....CHREIA
10:17-31....[/colorCHREIA
10:32-34[color=white]....Invention (3rd passion prediction)
10:35-45....Invention/anachronism (OT parallels)
10:46-52....Plato? NONE KNOWN
11:1-11......2 Kings 9:13, 1 Samuel 9 & 10 (OT parallels)
The passage about spreading garments may be based on 2 Kings 9:13 or similar. Whether the core narrative was created by the Church from Zechariah is difficult to decide but on the whole I think not.
11:12-14....(Jeremiah 8, 29, Joel 1, Hosea 9)
This may well be based on the OT
11:15-19....2 Kings (OT parallels)
I don’t think the destruction of the temple of Baal by Jehu is a good parallel at all. a/ The purification of a holy place is not a real parallel to the destruction of an idolatrous temple. b/ I have doubts about using the Elijah/Elisha material (Set in Israel/Galilee) in this way in the Jerusalem narrative.
11:20-25....Invention -- 2nd fig tree
11:27-33....Baptism authority? SAYING
12:1-12......PARABLE, 2 Kings 9:22-10:27 (OT parallels)
(should the 2 Kings 9-10 reference be with 11:15-19 ?)
12:13-17....CHREIA (Paul?)
12:18-27....CHREIA (OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:28-34....(OT/Jewish parallels, Paul?)
12:35-44....2 Kings 12:5-17
I don’t see this as really based on the OT at all.
13:1-31......2 Kings 10:26-28, anachronisms, (OT parallels)
I don’t think 2 Kings 10:26:28 is relevant it is more difficult to determine how far this was created by the church on the basis of OT prophecies. IMO it is largely pre-Markan in any case.
13:32-37....PARABLE
14:1-11......2 Kings 9:1-13 (OT parallels)
I don’t think this is based on 2 Kings 9:1-13 or 1 Samuel 10:1-7 at all. (the anointing in Mark is not a coronation)
14:12-25....1 Samuel 10:1-7 (Paul?)
(Should 1 Samuel 10:1-7 be with 14:1-11 ?)
14:26-31....(OT parallels)
14:32-42....1 Kings 19:1-5 (Psalm 78:39-41)
I don’t see this as really based on the OT at all.
14:43-52....2 Samuel 15-16
I don’t think this is based on 2 Samuel it is more difficult to determine how far this was created by the church on the basis of OT prophecies. IMO it is partly pre-Markan in any case.
14:53-65....Invention (OT parallels)
14:66-72....NONE KNOWN (Peter's denial= invention)
15:1-15......Daniel 6 (Josephus War?)
15:16-20....(OT parallels, Roman procession)
15:21-32....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:33-41....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
15:42-47....Daniel 6 (OT parallels)
16:1-8........Daniel 6, 2 Kgs 13: 20-1 (OT parallels)
(Responding to comments from 15:1 onwards). I don’t think Daniel 6 or 2 Kings 13:20-21 are particularly relevant here.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

This seems to me to be the only one of your objections that genuinely poses a threat to Vorkosigan's conclusion but the specific example, by your own words, seems to fall short. IOW, "might be doing" and "obviously straining" are not equivalent. How strong of a case can be made that the author is "straining" in this example? We've discussed the Temple Disruption story before and the best supporters for historicity could argue was "something probably happened". As it stands, the story does not appear credible given Josephus' testimony that additional guards were posted specifically against the possibility of such a disruption. If anything similar to the event described actually happened, an immediate arrest if not execution, seems likely so no Sandhedrin trial (or Roman?), no false accusations, no Pilate finding Jesus innocent, no offer to free Barabbas...

With so much apparent fiction, assuming "something probably happened", involved in the existing narrative, one has to wonder if the author is straining to connect an actual event to Scripture or straining to create a credible narrative from a need to establish a motive for the execution.

Are there legitimate examples of Mark "obviously straining" to establish a link to Hebrew Scripture?

Vorkosigan

Bede: not one of those parallels is my own invention, save for the one in Mk 13. So if you have a problem with the scholarship, take it up with the scholars, and leave me out.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

None of the links are postulated by me. I think that you need to sit down and read a few books on Mark.

Zeichman

Very impressive list, Micheal! I haven't run through it yet, but I'll take a look when I get some more time. I think you've definitely got enough material to publish your own book on Mark, though. Any chance we'll see that happen soon?

Vorkosigan

I sent the first inquiry letter our last month. Haven't heard diddly. I'm waiting for them a couple more weeks, and then I'm going to flog it shamelessly to anyone and everyone.

Michael