Vorkosigan

OK, let's imagine that Jesus' inability to perform miracles in his hometown is embarrassing. So if Frodo's failure to complete his mission. So is Huck Finn''s attitude toward Jim, which he later comes to regret. I could go on. The point is that before you can apply the criterion of embarrassment to a particular event, you need to know whether the author is committed to writing history or not. How did you confirm that with Mark? Merely that a tale reflects negatively on Jesus in your subjective view does not in fact mean that something is history -- it might have a didactic or political function.

Does Mark represent Jesus as a deity? Where does he do that?

You've just asserted something you don't have evidence for to support something you don't have evidence for.

So are many elements of Greek fiction.

1. How do you when Mark was written? I can make a case for at least three different times from 70-135.
2. How many fictional works do you know that make use of figures who lived near the writer's time? Answer (milions)
3. What specific historical location is Jesus placed in? What's interesting about Mark is that it doesn't have any "historical" locations, just geographical ones. Jesus does not show up during key historical events of the period. Jesus travels across a landscape bereft of social tension, civil war, etc.
4. If Mark really was writing while people from the beginning were still around, why are the pillars of the church depicted so fictionally and negatively? Either he is writing long after (and doesn't know anything) or his negative depiction has some political or didactic function (and there's no history). I think both options are correct, actually.

We have no evidence about Mark's audience either way. It might be more constructive to think about it in terms of different audiences. Certainly most people hearing Mark would not catch any of its extensive parallels and allusions, just as many people hearing Chaereas and Callirhoe would not catch the allusion to Aegospotami in the battles at the end, or many people hearing Xenophon's Ephesian tale would probably not realize that Habrocomes' first escape from a cross is borrowed from Herodotus, nor would many listeners have caught the way the opening sequences of each book of Daphnis and Chloe prefigure that section of the tale, or the way in Leukippe and Clitophon the four wines mentioned in a song from the Iliad at the beginning of book 2 each are associated with gods whose myths will control the action in that book.

But certainly some audiences would...

And further, it might also be more constructive to think about how Mark was used and not what it is. IMHO Mark is a recruiting document, not a document from or to a community. I see Mark as being performed (like many other exegetes), probably in conjunction with missionary plants in the audience, just as many missions do today. The reader is up there whaling away, and in the back, or perhaps during breaks, the missionary who knows the scriptures explains how the text shows that the OT prefigures Jesus. The extensive OT paralleling is there not just to create a figure, but also to validate that created figure. The jewish scriptures were not well-known of course, but they had a rep for being old and wide, some certain prestige. Imagine if you are an illiterate slave or menial worker and some recruiters for Christianity show up, with Mark as their document, and read it, and explain it to you. How would you receive that document?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yeah, except that the disciple call in Mark 1 is taken from the call of Elisha, and there's Elisha plowing with twelve oxen, and there is even reference to a pair of oxen (James and John, a pair of brothers). There are just too many, and no way to choose....

Vorkosigan

Are they "testimonies?" One could just as well argue that LoTR is a testimony to a remarkable hobbit.

The problem is that I don't understand or accept that fact, and the context of the details is fiction.

That's Christian doctrine on the "fundamental nature" of the gospels. But I don't think it is valid to permit Christian a priori doctrine interfering with the way the gospels are analyzed. Surely it would be bad methodology to accept the gospels as any X, Y, or Z prior to your exploration of them. You can decide what they are only after you have studied them and compared them to many other different kinds of documents.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

I believe this is missing Ben's point. He's not arguing that things are historical. He's suggesting that you don't provide reasonable grounds to rule it out--that your negative criteria is reversible (and, in fact, there can be little doubt that it is--he just reversed it with the temple prophecy. We can add to that (as you and I have agreed previously) the execution of John the Baptist--John really was executed).

Ben isn't, at least in his challenge to your negative criteria, making a positive case for anything. He's simply asserting, contrary to your suggestion both in this thread and previous threads, that the couching of a narrative in OT terms isn't evidence for or against historicity, because it's demonstrably consistent with both positions.

His argument, at the end of the day, is remarkably similar to ones you've put forth against multiple attestation, or against embarassment (your analogy to LotR on the latter comes immediately to mind). He's putting the criteria against an instance where we know the answer isn't what the criteria suggests it should be, thus demonstrating the criteria to yield a false result. He doesn't need to demonstrate history with an "outside vector" or otherwise to do that.

This isn't to say that such inquiry isn't worthwhile (for literary criticism, for example), just that it has limited merit in assessing historicity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW:
Thought I'd take a break from the fascinating discussion of whether misusing the definite article in Greek can be considered misusing the definite article in Greek and make a comment here. "Mark" has a Contrived and Ironic pattern of First Acceptance but then Rejection. This is a Literay Technique which heightens the Rejection by reaching it from Acceptance. Richard Carrier has koined this "reversed expectation". "Mark" often uses the key phrase "Amazed/astonished/surprised/marvelled" to frame these stories with the Amazed in a Positive sense followed by Amazed in a Negative sense. The skill of this author is illustrated by how many different ways he can do this:

John (messenger) is accepted by all.
Angel is not listened to by anyone.

Jesus is accepted by God.
Jesus is forsaken by God (the point of the "author" here was I think that even Jesus gave up on himself - the final reason for everyone else to)

The disciples accept Jesus.
The disciples abandon Jesus.

Jerusalem accepts Jesus as King.
Jerusalem rejects Jesus as King.

Pilate accepts Jesus as innocent.
Pilate condemns Jesus.

Probably the best example of this though are the two stories of Jesus in his hometown. The author has practically copied his own story to make it almost impossible to miss the Irony:

NIV
1.21 "They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. 23Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil[e] spirit cried out, 24"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
25"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" 26The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." 28News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee."

NIV
6.1 "Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. 2When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."


JW:
Now what changed between the first and second visit? Nothing. I don't think the author intended to give history here. He was making a figurative point. First Jesus was Accepted (while he was alive) and then he was Rejected (when he died).



Joseph

GRAVE, n.
A place in which the dead are laid to await the coming of the medical student.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

freigeister

Bear in mind that I specified that we use basic exegetical tools: knowledge of the language and culture in which the document originated, understanding of the first principles upon which it is based, and application of general rules of logic and reason. We know what LoTR is: a twentieth century novel. We know that the Gospels, whatever they are, are not that.

The context of the Gospels is that of the Judaism of 2000 years ago. Fiction was simply not part of the Jewish thought-world of the time. There are of course fictional elements; but the intent of the Gospels, like all Jewish literature of the time, is to record the truth, not to create fiction.

Of course. But we must also make sure to apply from the outset what we know about their context.

Comparisons can indeed aid exegesis: we can attain a better understanding of what the Gospels are by comparing them to the Talmud or to the letter of the Incan writer or to Hellenistic novels. Ultimately, though, exegesis is not comparison, but knowledge of the document itself. It is in the same way that we understand nature: nature cannot be understood by comparison to something else, but only through itself. In the words of the father of rationalist Bible interpretation, Spinoza:

Amaleq13

I would be very much interested in the basis for this assertion.

I have to wonder whether it can even be considered vaguely true given the existence of at least one college course and at least one text (Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology) entirely devoted to what you claim did not exist and specifically at a time you deny it existed.

(ETA) Here is a new one due out this month: Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative

Vorkosigan

Well, that much is true. We do know that the Gospels are not twentieth century novels. They're second century novels.

Can you explain how we know this?

I think Amaleq has certainly demonstrated that Jews were as enthusiastically into fiction as anyone else, as they left quite a few fictional tales -- Ruth, Esther, Third Maccabees, etc. Can you explain how you know the intent of the Gospels? I'd sure like to know that one.,

Yes, and that context includes a great many fictional tales that deal with crucifixions, tombs, resurrections, trials, city entrances, divine beings, and so on.

Knowledge of the docment itself is concerned with knowledge of related and concurrent documents.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

No, I understand Ben's point. I was simply inviting him, like I do all historicists, to demonstrate that there is history in Mark. In point of fact the account of John's death, while overwritten with Esther, is probably not from the original writer of Mark. But Ben has misconstrued mine -- OT paralleling is not the only reason I claim Mark is fiction, and Ben's construction of OT paralleling is too narrow.

It may be consistent with both positions, but where does its weight lie? Obviously not with historicity. You can, if you like, take on faith that Jesus was really from Galilee and really did miracles and spouted Cynic philosophy on his way to be executed. But there's no way to demonstrate it. The position "you can't prove it is history" is the one I take in my commentary at the moment, because that is the safe and supportable one, and also because I would like to get published and so must behave like a good little scholar. But it is not what I believe. And now that I have a whole barrel of evidence of how Mark is constructed from the ancient Greek narratives, Mark is definitely looking like fiction.

The problem here is that Mark is constructed by OT paralleling in three important ways, and Ben's objections only address one of those ways. First, OT paralleling is the backbone framework of the story -- the use of the Elijah-Elisha tale as the framework for the story from Mk 1-14. Second, the use of particular sequences from various OT books as intermediate level frames for specific pericopes for the story -- the way Esther underlies the John the Baptist , or Samuel underlies Mark 14, or Daniel 6 underlies the crucifixion. Third, the creation of specific verses through citation and reworking of the OT. The term "OT paralleling" hides a robust use of the OT at every level in Mark.

So to get back to JBap, Esther is used as the intermediate frame, but Elijah-Elisha is not. On its face Mark had a source for the tale. Similarly, while Daniel 6 supplies the intermediate frame for the story of Jesus' crucifixion, Mark sourced the historical datum from Paul. Etc. Note that because JBap's death is overwritten by Esther and reworked by a redactor, there's no historical data in Mark. It is only because we have the account in Josephus that we have any idea what happened at all.

Which is probably why OT paralleling at all levels is not the only reason I claim Mark is fiction. And I must disagree -- its weight is very great, which is why when historians discover a passage in later history that parallels an earlier one -- the Renaissance and later writers had a habit of imitating the ancients -- they go hunt down outside vectors to see what really happened.

Vorkosigan

Johnny Skeptic

Ted, since for some strange reason you have always refused to tell us what your wolrd view is, I find it difficult to reply to your posts because I don't know what your agenda are. What I would like to know is what you are trying to accomplish in this forum. Why do you care whether or not Mark is fiction, or any other part of the Bible for that matter? In another thread you and I debated the size of the 1st century Christian Church. I said that you were a fundamentalist Christian and you replied "I never said that," but neither did you say anything to the contrary. Do you believe that Jesus bodily rose from the dead? I simple yes or no will do. You oppose Vorkosigan's arguments, but what are your own arguments? What do you believe happened back then? Do you care at all? If Mark's Jesus is not fictional, what is it to you? It is a fact that you have an agenda at this forum or you wouldn't be here. From the content of your posts in this and other threads, most new readers who don't know that you have refused to state what your world view is will definitely assume that you are a fundamentalist Christian because you argue like one. So, it seems to me that either you are a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to admit it because you don't want to have to back up assertions, or that you enjoy debating just to pass the time.