Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rich Oliver · 03-23-2010, 03:16 AM

If I have understood things aright, a growing number of people including Earl Doherty and other members of this forum believe that Mark was written as fiction.

Although not a New Testament scholar myself it seems fairly basic scholarship that the large majority of Mark comes from sources which he has cut chopped arranged and edited together. Events such as the betrayal and the feeding of the 4/5000 demonstrate multiple layers in a developing tradition and suggest that parts of that tradition were already in written form.

I understand that Doherty sees Q or some version of it as the foundation of Marks Galilean story, but is it not clear that Mark used sources for example over the betrayal that, are independent of Q?

I find it implausible that Mark knew he was writing fiction, if he did, why did he feel obliged to be so subservient to his sources, that contradict each other and are often counter to Marks own theology.

I’m not in any way a defender of the historicist consensus on Jesus. I was for a long time in the Wells camp, but found Doherty’s view in some areas very powerful. Yesterday I was quite struck by Mathew 11, 11 which got referenced in another thread. I’m starting to think that the origins of Christianity are an insolvable riddle. I suspect there is a vast complexity of events, interactions, teachings and textual alterations and manipulations that we know nothing about and probably will never know anything about, that lie prior to the texts we now possess. This is all very convenient for those who want to believe in a fantasy Jesus, because as every theory of Christian origins has huge holes in it, the enthusiast is free to believe what ever they want, whether it be, the Christian Conservative view the Liberal Christian view, the Jesus Bloodline, Jesus was a Che Guevara / Buddhist / Timothy Leary/ repackaged Osirus etc etc etc.

Edit: A point that I've never seen made is that Q only got spotted because we have Matthew and Luke. If we had just Matthew or just Luke, no one would have spotted it. Who knows what other proto gospels lie hidden in our four extant gospels. I think some people have become over obsessed by Q and have it given undue importance. It may well have been only one of a range of pre gospel proto- gospels.

avi · 03-23-2010, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

I find it implausible that Mark knew he was writing fiction, if he did, why did he feel obliged to be so subservient to his sources, that contradict each other and are often counter to Marks own theology. (my emphasis)

I am a little confused, Rich. How would you know "Mark's own theology", in order to juxtapose it to the muddled geography and history of the gospel of Mark?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

.... the large majority of Mark comes from sources which he has cut chopped arranged and edited together.

A second reading of your submission today, has me even more confused.... Rich, how is it possible to ascertain "Mark's own theology", if "the large majority" of his text is simply cut and paste from other texts? (How do we know that "Mark" is only one author?)

Is there any evidence to support your opinion that "Mark's own theology" is distinct from the gospel of Mark? I am not writing here to ask you to cite person xyz's opinion, but rather, I inquire whether you know of evidence from any source, that leads you to suppose that Mark's gospel is constructed from multiple earlier documents? For example, is there some text, assuredly older than Mark's gospel, from which to point out occurrence of a probable plagiarism by Mark?

I adhere, sans evidence, to the contrary view: namely, I think Mark is the oldest of the extant new testament sources, and I believe, entirely without reason, just on faith, that Paul's letters and the three other gospels, and Acts, and so on, all FOLLOW Mark in time.....

What we need to settle this issue is some data. As you have suggested, we have only a paucity of that, therefore, perhaps, as you have written, we will never reach the goal of learning the answer to this chicken and egg riddle.

avi

Clivedurdle · 03-23-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark

(by Dennis R. MacDonald; Yale University, 2000)

by

Richard Carrier

An Incredible Book

This is an incredible book that must be read by everyone with an interest in Christianity. MacDonald's shocking thesis is that the Gospel of Mark is a deliberate and conscious anti-epic, an inversion of the Greek "Bible" of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which in a sense "updates" and Judaizes the outdated heroic values presented by Homer, in the figure of a new hero, Jesus (whose name, of course, means "Savior"). When I first heard of this I assumed it would be yet another intriguing but only barely defensible search for parallels, stretching the evidence a little too far—tantalizing, but inconclusive. What I found was exactly the opposite. MacDonald's case is thorough, and though many of his points are not as conclusive as he makes them out to be, when taken as a cumulative whole the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied. And being a skeptic to the thick, I would never say this lightly. Several scholars who reviewed or commented on it have said this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies and profoundly affect our understanding of the origins of Christianity, and though I had taken this for hype, after reading the book I now echo that very sentiment myself.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...erandmark.html

Add this to my personal fetish - Nazarenus, with a dash of chiasm via Vortigan and a dig at imperial cults.

JoeWallack · 03-23-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

Although not a New Testament scholar myself it seems fairly basic scholarship that the large majority of Mark comes from sources which he has cut chopped arranged and edited together.

JW:
Absolutely. The Jewish Bible, Paul, Josephus and Imagination. There's no quality evidence that "Mark" had any other source such as historical witness to HJ. If there was you'd be aware of it.

Quote:

Events such as the betrayal

Paul, Jewish Bible and Imagination.

Quote:

and the feeding of the 4/5000

Paul, Jewish Bible and Imagination.

Quote:

demonstrate multiple layers in a developing tradition and suggest that parts of that tradition were already in written form.

Not at all. "Mark" has a highly sophisticated style and structure indicating a pure original construction. The External and Internal evidence dates it to early second century and there is no evidence of any Jesus narrative before it. The 100 year gap is just right for there to no longer be anyone who knew HJ or knew someone who knew HJ to dispute "Mark" as history.

Quote:

I find it implausible that Mark knew he was writing fiction,

In the big picture. we can be certain that "Mark" is primarily fiction so it does not matter what "Mark" thought he was doing. The style indicates he considered it art. Art and history are not necessarily mutually exclusive. "Mark" could be a combination of the two. But which was more important to the author? That even his Jesus is subservient to Irony tells me that style was more important here.

In any case, the important question is what were "Mark's" sources and not his intent. "Luke" postures that she is writing history but her primary source is "Mark" so what "Luke" thought she was doing does not make it any better than whatever "Mark" was. Even worse, she freely edits "Mark" indicating she did not think "Mark" was simple history.

Quote:

if he did, why did he feel obliged to be so subservient to his sources, that contradict each other and are often counter to Marks own theology.

"Mark" has the consistent theology because it is original. The other Gospels have the theological contradictions because they use a base, "Mark", which had a different theology.

The bottom line is we can find parallels in "Mark" to The Jewish Bible, Paul, Josephus and Imagination because all of these potential sources exist. If the parallels are good than we likely have our source. If the parallels are okay than we may have our source. The establishment of clear use of these sources makes it more likely that less clear uses have the same sources.

The problem for HJ is we have no clear historical witness source to use to compare to "Mark" for parallels. Understand dear Reader? "Mark" may have history but it can not be demonstrated to be likely because no good parallels have been established between "Mark" and any historical source.

Wallack's Historical Law

The theologian assumes the possible is history and uses it as evidence that the impossible is likely history.

The historian assumes the impossible is not history and uses it as evidence that the possible is likely not history.

The potential historicity of any story in "Mark" is inversely related to the amount of the Impossible in the story. I've created a Thread:

FrankenChrist. The 4 Source Puzzle. Was There Just 1 Historical Piece? Fitting The 4

The purpose of which is to go through all the villages of stories in "Mark" and try to find one without a significant source of The Jewish Bible, Paul, Josephus and Imagination. Whatever is left is possible history. Good luck. I can't help thinking though of that classic Adam Family episode where they decide to give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left. "Matthew" lets it grow into a hineni, "Luke" covers it with a wig and "John" is a MoHawk.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Rich Oliver · 03-23-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am a little confused, Rich. How would you know "Mark's own theology", in order to juxtapose it to the muddled geography and history of the gospel of Mark?

A second reading of your submission today, has me even more confused.... Rich, how is it possible to ascertain "Mark's own theology", if "the large majority" of his text is simply cut and paste from other texts?

I was a bit stuck by this. I'm no longer sure about the point of Mark using sources that go against his own theology. The best example I can come up with at the moment is Mark 3:21 "the ones from beside of him". This suggests that Mark is using a source in which his family think he was mad, but Mark was uncomfortable with this, so he obscured it with this ambiguous phrase, although his family is still implied by the context of 3:31.

A simple example of multiple sources is Mark 14;17 "he arrived with the Twelve". This suggests that Mark is quoting a different source than in Mark 14:13-16, where two disciples are sent ahead. Either he should have arrived with his disciples or with ten of the Twelve.

Again in 14:20 "It is one of the Twelve". a very odd way to express himself, but makes sense as part of cut, splice and paste. A technique of course that was popular in the Pentateuch, eg the Noah story.

Rich Oliver · 03-23-2010, 07:37 AM

On the feeding of the four and five thousand. Unless one is a partisan literalist, the obvious implication was that at some point there was a story that Jesus fed a large amount of people with a small number of loaves and fishes. This developed into at least two versions with different numbers of people, fishes and loaves etc. These different versions were written down. Mark presumed there to have been two separate events. He therefore included both in his Gospel although this brought in the further ludicrous implausibility of the disciples being totally amazed at and surprised at the second feeding, although they had been present at the first.

Mark had sources beyond the Jewish scriptures, the Epistles and his imagination. some of these were written.

avi · 03-23-2010, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

.... This developed into at least two versions with different numbers of people, fishes and loaves etc. These different versions were written down. ...

Sorry, Rich, I am not buying it.
Where's the evidence that "These different versions were" recorded?

Yes, the synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions. No, these contradictions do not imply existence of different RECORDED papyrus documents, carefully written by some literate person observing Jesus' behaviour five or ten decades before the gospel of Mark was created-->documents in Mark's possession.

In my opinion, not a fact, only my opinion, the early traditions were oral, and arose after the Gospel of Mark. There was no Jerusalem Christian Church, run by the brother of Jesus, or anyone else. Christianity began as myth, whether in late first century, or early second century, who knows?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

Mark had sources beyond the Jewish scriptures, the Epistles and his imagination. some of these were written.

I applaud your enthusiasm, your certitude, and your confidence. Nice. Even better would be a single source, or even two, attesting to the validity of your claim, that "some of these were written."

avi

Clivedurdle · 03-23-2010, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

On the feeding of the four and five thousand. Unless one is a partisan literalist, the obvious implication was that at some point there was a story that Jesus fed a large amount of people with a small number of loaves and fishes. This developed into at least two versions with different numbers of people, fishes and loaves etc. These different versions were written down. Mark presumed there to have been two separate events. He therefore included both in his Gospel although this brought in the further ludicrous implausibility of the disciples being totally amazed at and surprised at the second feeding, although they had been present at the first.

Mark had sources beyond the Jewish scriptures, the Epistles and his imagination. some of these were written.

Quote:

MacDonald's book is built like a crescendo: as one reads on, the cases not only accumulate, they actually get better and better, clearer and clearer. In the story of the Gerasene swine (Mk. 5:1ff.) MacDonald finds that 18 verses have thematic parallels in the Odyssey, 13 of those in exactly the same order! And even with some of those out of order the order is not random but is inverted, and thus a connection remains evident. In the story of Salome and the execution of John, MacDonald finds seven thematic parallels with the Murder of Agamemnon, all of them in the same order, and on top of that he details two other general parallels. And the two food miracles, forming a doublet in Mark, contain details that match a similar doublet of feasts in the Odyssey, and contain them in the same respective order: "Details in the [first] story of Nestor's feast not found in the [second] story of Menelaus appear in the [first] feeding of the five thousand and not in its twin," while, "details in the [second] story of Menelaus not found in the [first] story of Nestor appear in the [second] feeding of the four thousand and not in the first story," so that "the chances of these correspondences deriving from accident are slim" (p. 85).

These examples of a connection between Mark and Homer are far more dense than the two examples I detailed earlier, and cannot be explained away even by the most agile of thinkers. Consider the last case, which even has the fewest parallels relative to the other two: in the first feasts, the main characters go by sea, but in the second, by land; in the first, only men attend (even though there is no explanation in Mark of why this should be), but in the second there is no distinction; in the first, the masses assemble into smaller groups, and lie on soft spots, but not in the second; more attend the first than the second (and the numbers are about the same: 5000 in Mark, 4500 in Homer). On the other hand, in the second feasts, unlike the first, someone asks the host a discouraging question and yet the host shows compassion anyway—in Mark, this is particularly strange, since after the first miracle the disciples have no excuse to be surprised that Jesus can multiply food, so the doubting question can only be explained by the Homeric parallel; finally, in the second feasts, as opposed to the first, there are two sequential courses—bread, then meat. In both authors, the feasts serve an overt educational role: in the one case to educate the hero's son about hospitality, in the other to educate the disciples about Jesus' power and compassion, drawing attention to the difference in each story's moral values. There are even linguistic parallels—Homer's feasts were called "symposia" (drinking parties) even though that word usually referred to smaller gatherings; likewise, Mark writes that the first feast was organized by "symposia," despite the fact that only food is mentioned, not water or wine. Several of these details in Mark, as noted, are simply odd by themselves, yet make perfect sense when we see the Homeric model, and therein again lies the power of MacDonald's thesis.

Carrier above.

Rich Oliver · 03-23-2010, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Yes, the synoptic gospels are filled with contradictions. No, these contradictions do not imply existence of different RECORDED papyrus documents, carefully written by some literate person observing Jesus' behaviour five or ten decades before the gospel of Mark was created-->documents in Mark's possession.

I was in no way suggesting that Jesus even existed, let alone that he was carefully observed and these observations recorded.

Somewhat parallel: if I suggest that Dan Brown didn't create the Jesus blood line myth out of whole cloth, but there already existed a major school of blood line theorists, doesn't mean that I don't think the story is ultimately nonsense.

show_no_mercy · 03-23-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Oliver

On the feeding of the four and five thousand. Unless one is a partisan literalist, the obvious implication was that at some point there was a story that Jesus fed a large amount of people with a small number of loaves and fishes. This developed into at least two versions with different numbers of people, fishes and loaves etc. These different versions were written down. Mark presumed there to have been two separate events. He therefore included both in his Gospel although this brought in the further ludicrous implausibility of the disciples being totally amazed at and surprised at the second feeding, although they had been present at the first.

But does it fit Mark's narrative? Let's take a look:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark 8

14The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat.

15"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."

16They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread."

17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember?

19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" "Twelve," they replied.

20"And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?" They answered, "Seven."

21He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"

Do you still not understand?

No one was physically fed in both of these "feedings". Right before the first feeding, the disciples had been sent out to evangelize. They come back and Jesus "feeds" a couple thousand people. Jesus fed them with the Spirit, not with literal fish and bread. In other words, Jesus was preaching to these people and he tells his disciples to beware of the preaching of the Pharisees and Herod.

If these feedings actually happened (as in, actually happened in Mark's world), the crowd and Jesus' disciples had absolutely no reaction to such a miracle. They just collect the baskets as though nothing happened. Contrast this with other miracles in Mark like exorcisms, and people react by blabbing to everyone. It's inconsistent with Mark's narrative to have people react as though nothing happened in such a miracle.

03-23-2010, 03:16 AM	#1
Rich Oliver Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 54	Mark not written as fiction. If I have understood things aright, a growing number of people including Earl Doherty and other members of this forum believe that Mark was written as fiction. Although not a New Testament scholar myself it seems fairly basic scholarship that the large majority of Mark comes from sources which he has cut chopped arranged and edited together. Events such as the betrayal and the feeding of the 4/5000 demonstrate multiple layers in a developing tradition and suggest that parts of that tradition were already in written form. I understand that Doherty sees Q or some version of it as the foundation of Marks Galilean story, but is it not clear that Mark used sources for example over the betrayal that, are independent of Q? I find it implausible that Mark knew he was writing fiction, if he did, why did he feel obliged to be so subservient to his sources, that contradict each other and are often counter to Marks own theology. I’m not in any way a defender of the historicist consensus on Jesus. I was for a long time in the Wells camp, but found Doherty’s view in some areas very powerful. Yesterday I was quite struck by Mathew 11, 11 which got referenced in another thread. I’m starting to think that the origins of Christianity are an insolvable riddle. I suspect there is a vast complexity of events, interactions, teachings and textual alterations and manipulations that we know nothing about and probably will never know anything about, that lie prior to the texts we now possess. This is all very convenient for those who want to believe in a fantasy Jesus, because as every theory of Christian origins has huge holes in it, the enthusiast is free to believe what ever they want, whether it be, the Christian Conservative view the Liberal Christian view, the Jesus Bloodline, Jesus was a Che Guevara / Buddhist / Timothy Leary/ repackaged Osirus etc etc etc. Edit: A point that I've never seen made is that Q only got spotted because we have Matthew and Luke. If we had just Matthew or just Luke, no one would have spotted it. Who knows what other proto gospels lie hidden in our four extant gospels. I think some people have become over obsessed by Q and have it given undue importance. It may well have been only one of a range of pre gospel proto- gospels.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2010, 07:37 AM	#6
Rich Oliver Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 54	On the feeding of the four and five thousand. Unless one is a partisan literalist, the obvious implication was that at some point there was a story that Jesus fed a large amount of people with a small number of loaves and fishes. This developed into at least two versions with different numbers of people, fishes and loaves etc. These different versions were written down. Mark presumed there to have been two separate events. He therefore included both in his Gospel although this brought in the further ludicrous implausibility of the disciples being totally amazed at and surprised at the second feeding, although they had been present at the first. Mark had sources beyond the Jewish scriptures, the Epistles and his imagination. some of these were written.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.