TedM

Maybe they clarify it, but they also ALL refer to him as 'king'--at least the version NASD I am looking at. And they DON'T clarify it in each place that he is mentioned to have been 'king'. To say that Mark is simply, grossly wrong about this defies common sense. Here's the quote I found in Josephus " He was one of the stock of the high priests (4) and had been of old a particular friend of Herod; and when he was first made king, he conferred that dignity upon him, and now put him out of it again,". Perhaps that is the wrong Herod--I didn't take the time to figure that out, but I'm not sure that would matter anyway..


Since you haven't demonstrated that locals would NEVER use such language, I don't think we can on these items alone conclude that Mark wasn't local. Therefore, OTHER items--perhaps having to do with geography and customs that anyone local surely would have known--would be necessary to use to make this argument. I think the original question had to with the dating of GMark. It would seem that other clues would need to be examined than the 3 specific ones you have mentioned here in order to make an argument regarding when GMark was written..

It of course doesn't mean he was right or wrong about everything, just that we can't demonstrate a pattern of exact accuracy about everything. Of course, the same can be said for traditional historical writings such as those of Josephus. As such it almost ALWAYS comes down to a judgement call: How much inaccuracy are you willing to accept before you decide it is historically untrustworthy?

Another, related question: If it can be shown that out of the verifiable statements by Mark, 50% are accurate, does this have any bearing on one's judgement as to the percentage of UNverifiable statements which are accurate?

ted

spin

"[D]efies common sense"?

Mk is the source for Mt's version, yet Mt introduces Herod the tetrarch correctly (so does Lk), the single reference to the king which follows is easily attributable to a simple scribal error of copying what was seen rather than thinking about correcting. Mk uses "king" many times.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't argue that either the writers of Mt or Lk were working in Judea.

If you had supplied the exact reference when you supplied the exact quote I would have been able to help you more definitely, but from what you have quoted, Herod Antipas was not of the stock of high priests, so it apparently doesn't refer to him. Aristobulus was and his children, including Agrippa, were.

I guess you're right. We've got no certain examples of what the locals wrote, except perhaps Josephus who appears to have only called him a tetrarch.

No? They are indications that the writer shows questionable knowledge of local conditions. Then the linguistic evidence is quite impressive. For example, why is the temporary headquarters of the "governor" called a praitwrion (the governor's palace was after all in Caesarea)? Why do coins bear Roman names or worse, Caesar's head, when the coins of Judea were prutahs and shekels and representations of people were a no-no? There are many more such signs of a Latin context.

The original question was not generally singular in my posts. Perhaps you caught a single "when", but I usually ask when the text was written, where, who by, who for and what was the literary tradition context. The questions of historical accuracy you are responding to are dealing with location which show some evidence to doubt the unsubstantiated claim by later commentators that Mk was based on local information.

Given the evidence I have put forward, can you contextualise the gospel so that it explains most of these manifestations?

Again, we are not dealing with a binary taxonomy. We don't just have verifiable and unverifiable. We also have erroneous, eg "king Herod" for Antipas.

Given the number of problems I've indicated with the reliability of the text, the burden is placed on you to discern what actually is factual.

I wonder if you think it's not sufficient to give you trust in the narrative of the Satyricon that it mentions real places such as Naples and Croton, that people in the book used Tyrian purple or imported Syrian plums, that the writer correctly knew historical events such as the death of Crassus in Parthia or that of Pompey in Africa or Caesar's defeat of the Gauls. Would you argue that Laenas or Giton were probably real? I would hope not. It is the substantive evidence for those central figures that we have to use, isn't it?

I have merely further pointed out that there are also problems with the text of Mk, which point to a lack of local knowledge of Judea, showing the confusion of the writer with regard to the local conditions and suggesting that the writer did not write in Judea but Rome.


spin

TedM

Thanks for the clarifications, spin.

I was zooming in on just a subset. It well may be that the other data presents a very compelling case for non-local authorship. As I see it, the subset of examples you provided may not, though I agree that Mark was not accurate as Josephus or Matthew or Luke when describing Herod. This could suggest either ignorance or carelessness. Of course, if Ch 6 is an interpolation as some suggest, it gets Mark off the hook for that one!

thanks and take care,
ted

spin

So a hypothetical interpolation crept in before Mt got hold of Mk?!

ETA: Another error in the same passage is that the writer calls Herodias's previous husband Philip the brother of this "King" Herod, yet this was certainly not the case. While Herod Antipas had a brother Philip, Herodias's Philip was from another branch of the family. This is an error packed passage, isn't it?

:wave:


spin

yalla

This little episode of Herod and the dancing daughter, "Mark" 6.14ff, is rife with errors that impinge overwhelmingly on its credibility.

V14 has the incorrect title as pointed out above.
v17 has the incorrect brother as pointed out above
v18 gives the wrong reason for J the B's imprisonment [if one accepts Josephus' account], and "Mark's" reason could not, according to D. Nineham [p.174 of "St. Mark" Pelican NT], support the implied grounds of incest for John's objection. So Joe is well ahead on points here.
v22 is described by D. Nineham as unlikely in that a princess dancing in front of a group of men at a banquet was not likely to be proper ettiquette for such.
"What is your request? It shall be given to you even to the half of my kingdom".
That's actually the words of the king in Esther 5.3, just about repeated verbatim by the author of "Mark" and showing the source of some of his errors. The Esther story, itself an example of a common motif, is clearly inspirational to ''Mark'''s story.
v23 He [Herod the tetrarch] actually doesn't have a kingdom to give 1/2 of away and the Romans would probably have something to say on the issue.

[v26 is interesting cos mark Goodacre uses it as part explanation of the element of "fatigue'' as the author of "Matthew" tries to change the thrust of the story [showing that he doubted its absolute integrity and felt free to alter it for his purposes] but unwittingly reverts back to ''Mark"'s original.]

v27 "immmediately" .... yet Josephus has John a long way away in the fortress.

As a friend of mine says "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
"Mark" didn't.
cheers
yalla

TedM

What is incompatible about the reason between Josephus and Mark? Given the incestuous situation it seems very reasonable that JTB--who preached righteousness would have been critical of it.


Why? Isn't this what happened in Esther? Don't men in high places encourage such things?


It could have inspired Mark entirely, or it could have inspired folklore which Mark repeated, or it could have inspired Herodias and/or Herod too.


Yes, this may have gotten botched or exagerrated in the retelling of the events. Or, Herod could have said it anyway, in a drunken state during the party.

This isn't a problem. It doesn't say the soldiers immediately came in with JTB's head--just that they immediately left to get it.

It seems to me that the general story could be based on truth and is compatible with Josephus' story, though in the retelling some specifics were inaccurate.

ted

Vorkosigan

There are many more such links between that tale and the Esther tale. I laid them out on my website:

Vashti, wife of the Persian King, is granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar Herodias, wife of Herod, is granddaughter of Herod the Great

Vashti is commanded to appear before the Court wearing her crown (seen by later Jews as wearing only the crown). In Talmud Megillah 12B she is to appear only wearing royal crown
(Herodias' daughter dances lasciviously before Herod)

Esther marries the King of Persians, displacing Vashti
Herod has taken his brother's wife as his own, setting aside his own wife

Haman suggests Vashti be killed (Midrash)
(Herodias suggests John be killed)

Vashti's head is brought before the King on a platter (Midrash)
(John's head is brought before Herod on a platter)

Esther wants to stop Haman from destroying the Jews
Herodias wants John dead for criticizing her marriage

The enemy of Esther, Haman, is the king's favorite.
Herodias' enemy, John, is thought to be a "righteous and holy man" by Herod, who "kept him safe" and "heard him gladly." [Vork:Frickin' absurd!]

Haman goes home to get the advice of Zeresh his wife and his friends (twice) (Herodias' daughter asks her mother what to ask for.)

Esther and the King are at a banquet arranged by her for herself and Haman Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee.

"And it was so, when the king saw Esther the queen standing in the court, that she obtained favour in his sight; and the king held out to Esther the golden sceptre that was in his hand. So Esther drew near, and touched the top of the sceptre."
"For when Herodias' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests"

"And the king said to Esther' Whatever thy petition, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy request," the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it."
"...even to the half of the kingdom, it shall be performed.' 23: And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom."

I consider this section to be a later interpolation. The original story probably contrasted the filial behavior of JBap's disciples in following JBap with the weakness and betrayal of Jesus' disciples later in Mark. But that is speculation on my part, there is no way to deduce what the original tale was. The elaborations of the Vashti tale in the Midrash are all known from late sources and it is impossible to tell what was known to AMark, nevertheless, it seems a safe assumption that the bringing in of John and Vashti's head on a platter is a unique detail too unique to have independently evolved.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I should add that the detail of Herod keeping JOhn safe is probably meant to contrast to Pilate's behavior with Jesus, though how I am not yet sure.

Vorkosigan

TedM

Hi Vork. I don't care to rehash my responses to each of the items you mention which in many cases seem to me to not indicate a reliance/inspiration. I do think the "head on a platter" may well have been influenced by the Esther story due to the level of detail combined with other similarities, but that doesn't require fictionalizing by the writer, since the story of Esther could well have been known to Herodias herself, and thus a fine choice for treatment of the one who criticized her slutty behavior.

ted

Vorkosigan

Perhaps. But how did she get Herod to offer her half the kingdom? It's the combination of parallels plus citation of the source text that reveals literary invention.

Further, this creates a world in which Jesus is faithfully enacting the OT, Herodias is enacting Esther, the man with the dead girl has decided to enact Elijah.....apparently in Judea of Jesus' day, nobody acted out their own lives; they all lived out past tales.

Vorkosigan