Vorkosigan

What would you point to? The thing about the Greek romances is that they picked up the conventions of narrative in history. It is obvious when you read the romances that they are fictions, and I doubt anyone ever thought otherwise. But when you strip out the obvious fictional stuff (the romantic couple reunited after incredible adventures), then you're left with a set of narrative elements and construction techniques that could be either history or fiction, and when properly presented, could be made into history.

I had thought about that. It just seems incredible that nobody noticed the connection between two sets of stories, each of which involved crucifixions, sea travel, etc, until the 20th century.

Michael

Amaleq13

Not IMO because I think calling what he did intentionally deceptive requires us to assume that he and his audience shared our conception of what "history" means. I think he considered his version to be just as "true" as Mark's but I don't think he defined "true" synonymously with the way we define "historically accurate".

IOW, I think there was more faith involved in identifying the story as "true" than, say, confidence in the supporting evidence/sources for the story.

TedM

Sorry, but I see little indication that Luke 17 uses either Mark 1 or the OT healing of Naaman by Elisha. What are the markers?

ted

Vorkosigan

tedM: the lepers are told to show themselves to the priests. One of the ten is a Samaritan -- why would he show himself to a Jewish priest? Clearly Luke is tracking Mark 1:44. The the rest comes from the story of Naaman, who is told to "go" (poreutheis) wash in the Jordan and be cleansed (katharistese) just as J tells the lepers to "go" (same greek) and they were cleansed (ekatharisthesan). One of the lepers turns back (hypestrepsen) after his cleansing to praise god just as Naaman retured (epstrepse) to Elisha to rpaise God after his cleaning. Helms adds that the cry of the lepers is the cry of the blind man at Jericho, to which Jesus responds your faith has cured you as in Mark. etc. The irrelevance of a Jewish priest to a Samaritan leper is the kind of telltale error that Matt made with Zech 9:9 -- it lets you see where the passage as from.

Michael

ynquirer

I’m afraid, Vork, that you here quite miss Luke’s point. The sending of a Samaritan leper to a Jewish priest is not a telltale error, but the distinctive sign of the miracle instead.

Leviticus includes two whole chapters – 13 and 14 – that are devoted to what is called “the law for a leprous disease,� which is nothing other than a very detailed protocol of the ritual procedures a priest must follow when a leper comes to him. Such a protocol is intended to allow the priest finally decide whether the ritual procedures have cleansed the leper, that is, healed him, or the leper still is a leper.

Now, if nine Jewish lepers plus a Samaritan one come to a Jewish priest, he would undoubtedly apply the “law for a leprous disease� to the former nine. (BTW, Jesus thus displays his knowledge of the law.) The nine Jews being healed, both all them and the priest(s) involved in the business would be naturally led to think that it is the law of Moses that has healed them – this is the only contact with Mark 1:44. The miracle is not Jesus’.

Yet we don’t know what the Jewish priest(s) did as regard the Samaritan leper, although this is immaterial to Luke’s point. They probably rejected him on account of the law of Moses not having been laid down law for a non Jew. Still he was cleansed! The miracle is unmistakably Jesus’.

Enrique

Asha'man

This seems to be an imaginary problem. Capital punishment had not yet been stripped from the Sanhedrin in the 30s, the gospel protest is an anachronism. So there is no reason that a blasphemer named Jesus would not have been stoned and then hanged as specified by jewish law. Pilate would have broken no law, nor would he even be asked to consider the matter.

Julian

There is good reason to believe that Mark originally read You say that I am. It has some attestation in the caesarean texts and it quite plausible on internal grounds.

Julian

Vorkosigan

Hmmmm...OK. Thanks for the input.

JoeWallack

JW:
Another excellent response Ben. Thanks. You've probably noticed how much attention you're getting here compared to the other Christians and it's because your Conclusions are very Good.

Let me give you a backdrop of my major Assertions:

1) Paul is evidence of Not Historical Jesus. Whatever Witness Paul received of Historical Jesus was Not authoritative to him. Whatever competition Paul had from Historical Jesus Witness was Not authoritative to Paul's audience. All evidence for a Not Historical Jesus.

2) "Mark" is evidence for a Historical Jesus. "Mark" is primarily an Apology as to why the original Jesus Movement died with Jesus' death. The Apology is necessitated by an Historical Jesus' death. Doherty hasn't had to deal with this yet because Christianity hasn't Retreated to this Position. Yet.

Now let's look back and Focus only on "Mark's" primary Assertion to progress your Journey to The Dahk Side O-Ben-One-Can-Know-Be:


JW:
IMNotHO "Mark" measured Sucess/Failure by Belief in a Post (pun intended) dead Jesus (I think "Mark's" "Belief in a post dead Jesus" has a potentially broad meaning but...). Agree Ben?

I think "Mark" has presented a story where No one In the story believed in a Post dead Jesus. Agree Ben?

If no one In the story believed in a post dead Jesus than everyone in the story Failed Jesus. Agree Ben?

Hmmm, presenting a Story to an Audience where everyone in the story is Blind to what the Audience can see. Now where have I seen that before? Oh yea, Classic Greek Tragedy.

Now getting back to The Anointing Woman above, good ol what'sherface?, I've indicated my Belief that she would also have Failed Jesus since the Implication from "Mark" is that No one believed in a Post dead Jesus. I think the purpose of this Type of character though is to emphasize the primary Point here that everyone who knew Jesus failed him. The Lesser character, such as the Unknown, known woman is Ironically Contrasted with the Greater character, such as the known man. Specifically here she is Contrasted with Judas.

You know Greek so you know that "Judas" is really "Judah". So we have a presentation of "Judah" betraying Jesus. Does that sound Contrived to you Ben? This Unknown Woman Anoints Jesus and thus helps to Create his Messiahship. The next scene has the Known Man Judas, make arrangements to Destroy his Messiahship. Certainly Judas would have known Jesus much better than this woman as The Story goes.

Another Good example of this Ironically Contrasting Style is the Centurion who is the only one to recognize the Signs at Jesus' death. Presumably he would not have Known Jesus as well as the other Death audience.

The Final example of this is the Receipt of Jesus in death by Jesus' enemies, the Sanhedrin, as opposed to Jesus' family or Disciples. "Arimathea" can mean "best Disciple Town". When there are this many Contrivances it's Not a coincidence. Again, the Ironic Contrasting Style. According to "Mark" the better you knew Jesus, the bigger your Failure. It's the Disciples that are primarily Indicted in "Mark" and not "The Jews". Only the Disciples received Clear Teachings and Instructions, only Peter Explicitly denied Jesus 3 times, only a Disciple Betrayed Jesus and there were no Disciples around to bury Jesus. The Final Indictment.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

TedM

It isn't clear at all to me that Luke was tracking Mark 1:44. Luke already told the story in 5:12-16, so you are suggesting that after already retelling the same miracle he used it again for another purpose. For that to be a reasonable hypothesis we need some telltale markers that clearly give away Luke's inspiration. I don't see any.

Showing oneself to the priest isn't a marker because that is what Jewish lepers were to do under Jewish law, so the command properly applied to nine of the ten. You have assumed apparantly that Jesus knew the Samaritan was a Samaritan when he addressed all ten. Luke doesn't say that Jesus knew this. He may have assumed they were all Jewish. If Jesus made a 'mistake' by assuming the Samaritan was Jewish, why assume that is a mistake by Luke? Or maybe there was no mistake at all: Jesus may have known the man was Samaritan and that is why he healed the foreigner before he got to the priests, but having healed all ten at the same time it provided an opportunity to contrast the righteousness/faith of Gentiles with blind adherence to the law by the Jews. If Jesus didn't make a mistake, then there is no need to assume a 'mistake' by Luke either.

You mentioned some other markers:

First, there is a reason for them to 'go': To be pronounced 'clean'. As for the order of healing, they were cleansed on the way to where they were to go, and it could have been nearly immediately, which is typical of the other healings in the gospels. In the story of Naaman he is told to both 'go' and "wash" in order to be healed. In Luke there is no 'washing' in a river required, and the healing occurred before they arrived at the place they were told to go. In the story of Naaman one man is told what to do second-hand. In Luke Jesus directly meets all ten on the road and instructs all ten.
So far, I don't see a strong marker...

Naaman returned after washing. The Samaritan returned before showing to the priest. Going back to say 'thanks' after being healed of leprosy doesn't seem very unusual to me. Not a strong marker..

What is so unusual about crying out to be healed, being healed, and then told 'your faith has healed you'? I don't see a marker here at all..



Again, the 'mistake' about the Samaritan may not be a mistake at all. Even if it was a mistake it isn't a marker of invention inspired by either Mark 1:44 or in the story of Naaman. It is a possible marker of invention completely out of Luke's head, but the case for it isn't strong for the reasons that the other sources of inspiration for this 'mistake' can't be identified and that the other markers you mention above are fairly weak. Certainly none are what I'd call 'strong'.

Knowing that Luke already told the story from Mark 1:44 in chapter 5, that there is a complete absence of strong telltale markers, and knowing of reasonable alternative explanations for the supposed 'mistake', I conclude that this account could have come from a miracle account Luke got from others and that there isn't strong evidence for the idea that Luke invented the story on his own.

Michael, if you are relying primarily on this account to conclude that Luke knew Mark was complete fiction and was himself also knowingly adding his own fiction, I am incredulous. Surely you have more support than this passage. I'd appreciate it if you would provide some more..

ted