Ben C Smith

In its present form, it long postdates Mark.

It is always a challenge to determine which Mishnaic and Talmudic traditions may date back to century I.

For the sake of balance, you probably ought to have noted the possibility that Jesus himself got the idea to enter on a donkey from this kind of Jewish tradition. (I myself have grave doubts about the historicity of the triumphal entry; but I think we should always make note of the various possibilities.)

Ben.

gstafleu

True, but then this particular sense of balance got unbalanced by the general tightness of Mark's story. To tight, for messy history, surely?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

In what way is the basic account in Mark too tight to be historical?

Ben.

gstafleu

In the sense that the pieces just seem to fit too well: real life is usually messier than that. Take e.g. the sequence starting with Jesus and his disciples crossing the waters a number of times and ending with the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod. Crossing the waters is an often used metaphor for achieving a mystical goal, but it isn't easy to do. Hence that bit of calming the storm: Jesus is absent (has snoozed of) during such a crossing, and immediately things go wrong and need his intervention (i.e. the dumb disciples can't do it).

Every time he crosses the waters he performs a bunch of miracles, usually healing someone, showing the disciples "how it is done." Something else he shows the disciples is how to hand out wisdom to the multitudes (feeding the multitudes). After that he asks them to now do it by themselves (he sends them out to cross the waters by themselves), but again the silly dunces cannot pull it off. To rub this in, Jesus walks on the waters, ignoring the prop of the boat.

So the disciples cannot cross the water by themselves. Can they at least help people? No, they board the boat without bringing food, i.e. they are not prepared/able to hand out bits of wisdom to the multitudes, and Jesus has to berate them that this is just the attitude that the Jerusalem clique (Herod and the Pharisees) would take: keep something to yourselves that you can share without loss, just because it gives you power.

This is a well-focused story, centered around learning the holy-man trade (via the metaphor of crossing the water) and learning to help other people (via the metaphors of healing and feeding). Now, I can easily see how a gifted author could put something like that together. I don't see it happening in real life, though. Do you?

Gerard Stafleu

James Brown

To gstafleu's follow-up post I would also add the odd behavior of the women on Easter morning. They awake early to dress the body (which apparently had already been done Friday evening) and discuss among themselves who's going to roll away the tombstone for them. So if Jesus hadn't resurrected, as the women clearly were not expecting him to, then they would have arrived at the sealed tomb, shrugged their shoulders, and walked back home, the entire trip being pointless. To me, the discussion about the rolled-away tombstone smacks of a literary device.

Ben C Smith

Sorry. I meant the basic account in Mark of Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey. I was responding to this exchange:

Ben.

gstafleu

I see, my mistake. However, my impression of Mark overall is that he is to neatly construed to be based on reality, the water thing is just one example.

As for the donkey, it too is suspiciously neat. It sets up this great dichotomy between Jesus' humble entrance and the silly reaction to it by the Jerusalem crowd. Which then gets reinforced by that scene where Jesus gets Pilate to say he is the King of the Jews (as opposed to Jesus saying it himself). Not to mention the crown-of-thorns and purple robe bit, which really drives home the point. Almost too good to be true, no?

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

Bait and switch. The examples you gave would lead one to conclude (rightly) that Mark is presenting full history, akin to a modern historian. However, it is fallacious to conclude that it also negates Mark being based upon history. You obviously haven't read much historical fiction.

This is your personal opinion. You'll have to do better comparatively with other [randomly selected] historical points if you want this to be valid. Otherwise, its your unsupported opinion, and worthless at that.

gstafleu

Sorry, which bait did I switch? Anyway, I take it you mean that one would rightly conclude that Mark is not presenting full history? Given that, I agree that the possibility that Mark is based on history remains open. The question of course is: how to extract it. My suggestion is that if we find bits that are too neat, literary wise, we can reject those as non-historical constructions. So exit the water business, the entrance on the donkey, the conversation with Pilate and the crown-and-robe business.

Gerard Stafleu

Solitary Man

You presented examples to show that Mark is not actual history. Participants agreed. Therefore, you claim, this shows that Mark is not based on history.

Simply fallacious.