Ted Hoffman

What evidence do we have for this? Was he worshipped as an intermediary saviour figure or as a god? Remember Christianity is monotheistic and Catholic trinity came later.
Was he a logos as an abstract force or a lesser god who died in a sublunar realm as per Paul. Where is the evidence?
These Markan precedents, whatever you may conceive them, must be amenable to evolution to a Markan HJ. Otherwise Mark would not have been received favorably as he apparently was by later Christians.
Why were Pauline letters retained by these Christians?
This is heavy and its implications are too huge for me to cope with right now. I need to think about it. I have emailed Doherty and await his response.

Ted Hoffman

Why does Paul accept the claims latent in "to Cephas and then to the twelve"? He got these from oral traditions that were floating around?

Malachi151

That is interpolation. "The Twelve" never appears in any other Pauline text. That's is post-gospel interpolation, as Robert M. Price has argued.

Ted Hoffman

Yes I remember that argument by Price. Now, this is how I see it:
Paul and Mark could simply have invented their own Jesus if they didnt like Peter and gang. That they didnt means they were already followers/believers.
What were they worshipping? I asked:

Ted Hoffman

By the way Malachi, I havent got your answer regarding what it is that made Peter and gang feel priveledged. Why did Mark attack them and not others. If you say Mark was a Roman Christian and was hitting the Jewish Christians, that would be fine.
But what about Paul? What was it about the other gang that made them hold themselves as better than Paul?

Solo

I agree in general that "by itself" the controversy cannot be construed in any way as a conclusive proof of historicity. On the other hand, the striking presence of a profane view of Jesus cannot be dismissed lightly as another literary ploy suffered by Wisdom descending from heaven. Some mythical parallel of this sort of embarrassment needs to be shown.

I have read many ingenious "explanations" of the incident (see e.g. Telford, Barren Temple) but none of them really deals with the issue that I pointed out. One will simply have to either violate the text or ignore its cognitive content to get out of the stratagem that was created by splicing two stories. The Markan tale does not assert the tree was "barren" or "withered" when Jesus approached with a demand which by all standards was unreasonable. Therefore the curse, or Jesus judgment, was unreasonable as the tree (or Israel) was not in any way culpable. It was something read into a likely original tale by the gospeller.

So why would be this strange Jesus' mental error and curse be remembered by the witnesses ? Because it was strange. The weird things about leaders are always remembered by inner circles of associates: Churchill's obcene ditties, Hitler's sexlessness (Erna Hanfstaengel), Pilsudski's private conversations with Poland, Stalin's drunken violence, they were all remembered as testimony to the leader's dominance and doubts of the followers in their choice of leader.

It undoubtedly is but that in itself does not explain Jesus' frustration with Peter. In the story, not only Peter was an oaf, who was slow in the uptake but he was also scared by the openly suicidal ideas Jesus was espousing. He tried to talk him out of it as any good friend would. Jesus flies into a rage.
Surely, Mark could use this story to make his own conclusions about it.
But, have you noticed something - there is a behavioural parallel with the fig-tree story, if you read this as a real happening. Was Mark fictionalizing Jesus as a man seen by some unsound, and then himself adding oil into the fire by creating witness of his short-tempered nature ?

There is a pretty good textual analysis of the story in Gundry (Mark). He identifies the textual grounds for beliefs of some exegets that the mythical pigs drowning is a later accretion to the story. I suspect as much on psychological grounds, as I find some interesting parallels between the Gerasene demoniac and John's Lazarus story. The structure of the Lazarus story embeds quite a different tale which was simply overwritten by John, and it agrees with the Gerasene demoniac in the following items: 1) both stories confront Jesus with a man 'confined' in a cemetery, 2) in both tales Jesus is besought to relieve acute discomfort (in Lazarus, the sisters act by proxy), 3) in both stories the predicament of the sufferer relates to eschatological issues proclaimed by Jesus, 4) in both stories Jesus restores the sufferer, 5) in both stories Jesus' 'cure' is rejected by the larger community.
The 'legion' of 'spirits' that possess the Gerasene man present some interesting grammatical issues (Gundry analyzes them), which confirms my strong suspicion that in the original tale, it was not the demons but the man who 'knew' Jesus, and who related his disconsolate condition to a recent acquaintance with the wandering preacher (There is telling switch in the narrating sequence between verses 7 and 8). What it boils down to is that the plurality of the demons and their relocation into the swine are, again on cognitive grounds, much too convenient and clumsy smokescreen for something else.

Jiri

Malachi151

What "sort" of embarrassment are you talking about, and why can't there be anything original in the Jesus story? Also, see Martyrdom of Isaiah, which satisfies your demands anyway.

I have already explained this here many times. This is a passgae that the author built from Hosea 9:

Everything in GMark is built on OT scriptures. Pretty much any passage that you want to figure out, all you have to do is look for a correlation in the OT.

Umm... see above, this is a literary invention.

Malachi151

Who knows? First of all, we have nothing from these people, so we have no idea what their views were. Secondly, this is simply a common aspect of any group. Why did the priests at the Temple of Artemis feel privileged, etc.?

As I have said here before, I suspect that the "Jesus Christ" figure developed from a teachings of James. James is probably the closets thing to a historical Jesus, though I certainly wouldn't put too much stock in that, it seems the best that can be figured out with the little info we have.

Ted Hoffman

Not necessarily. We know Celsus' views from Origen's Contra Celsum. But your point is well taken.
Um, because they were "Priests at the temple of Artemis"? I mean, obviosuly not everyone was a priest at that temple. They probably could have their way with vestal virgins and sat around smoking cannabis all day. I dont know.
What do we know about what James taught? And who was James? Do you subscribe to Eisenmann's interpretation of who James was?
I think there is more that can be said and done but thanks. I really appreciate your answers.

Ted Hoffman

I dont think so. Embarrasment is in the eyes of the beholder. The pagans for example told the stody of Zeus becoming a duck to have intercourse with a woman. Yet they still regarded Zeus as a God. The OT talks of Yahweh showing Abraham his backparts - what does that mean? His behind was bare and he wasnt wearing some loincloth? He was endowed with huge behinds? It was a sexual gesture? what?
Secondly, the match does not have to be exact for the parallels to fit.
Or it could be an attempt at explaining why fig trees bear no edible fruit - like those mythical tales that explain that snakes crawl because God punished them. This story, like calming the storm, could have been peddled to illustrate Jesus' power over nature.
Like I said, there are several possible explanations. Whichever way one leans, I dont see how it can be used to refute mythicism.
The Lord is often portrayed as short-tempered. Note that they emphasize that it dried to its roots. Showing that Gods wrath can slice accross generations and he doesnt pull punches or take any prisoners.