rlogan

He didn't appear in Galilee. People do not arise from the dead.

The story was invented many decades after the fictitious event. Nobody wondered.

This is the modern day equivalent of saying he would appear in Canada. As if that was a "location". Even if you told everyone in Galilee, what were they supposed to do? Camp out at Gischala? Hit the beach at Capernaum? Mt. Carmel, maybe?

Vorkosigan

Yes, but others have visions of them doing so. So "Galilee" must be explained, not merely dismissed as a fiction.

rlogan

Hi Vork. No problem, you took out the second part of my statement.

The gospel story has been made up after the "fact". I don't have to present to you the body of evidence regarding that.

One might think this specific matter is tricky with having to prove a negative. (prove he did not appear to people in Galilee). But it isn't.

There was no gospel Jesus and there cannot therefore be a returning from the dead by someone who never existed in the first place. The "people who saw him" are fiction.

He has to be resurrected. That is an integral part of the new faith. So he has to be seen in the story. Fixating on where he was "seen" is silly when it is fiction to begin with.


I noticed how specific the instructions were from the boy in the tomb. Yeah - he said to meet him in Galilee 2 clicks south of Capernaum in the sheep barn by the camel watering station.

Toto

Comments by or about Chili and his interpretation of Galilee and the beast in Revelation have been split off to this thread.

Vorkosigan

Of the parables in Mark? Yes. They are closely related to the OT, and Mark even managed to work in a larger parallel to the Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings in the Parable of the Tenants (=Jehu killing 70 sons of Ahab). The underlying logic of the Jehu parallel here makes the chief priests and scribes into the priests of Ba'al, which also happens in a couple of other places where there are not parables. The parable itself is filled with markers of Markan style -- use of the Septaugint in the introductory verses, hypertextual references to the Temple (in Jewish lore on the Isaiah quote in 12:1 the Tower=Temple, the vat=altar and the fence= the oral law), a prophetic reference to Jesus' death, etc. If Mark did not write the parable, his adaptation is deep and strong.

OK. I can see where it would be possible to argue that "Galilee" exists because it has some tie to early Christianity. Outside of the Gospels/Acts, what evidence can you cite?

Mark reflects a later period when missionary activities were strong, I believe and clashes with Judaism intense. Sometime after 110, I would say, but anywhere between 70 and 150.

I agree totally. That's why I think that John 21 was the original ending of Mark.

He didn't. The whole thing, IMHO, is an invention of people outside of Galilee. Peter and James and the others were all Jerusalemites. Paul never connects them to Galilee, and he never calls them anything that would suggest they are not Jerusalemites.

He did, in my view, in John 21.

The location of the Markan community.

Because Isa 9:1 indicates it!

Well -- neither do I! I don't think Doughty's idea is particularly appealing. But I tossed it out there anyway. The whole thing is controlled by Isa 9:1.

It is a work of fiction that is designed to provide an Origin Myth for the group.

I don't know. I think it is all explainable in terms of Isa 9:1 and dozens of other OT passages. When Paul says "Gospel" he means something he found with an idiosyncratic reading of the Torah. Mark simply followed his lead, searching the OT for crumbs.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

IMO, the connection originates with the prophets of the coming Kingdom of God described in Q. Mark's author does not appear to have had a copy of Q but it can be argued that he was familiar with the group it describes.

Whether that connection was created because Jesus was actually a leader of that group or because the author of Mark was familiar with them and used them as his template for depicting the pre-crucifixion Jesus is another question entirely.

the_cave

No.

Well, we have a *little* bit of information...in this example, not much.

Ok, agreed.

I frankly admit this.

But, spin, surely it's not as though Latin wasn't spoken anywhere besides Rome!

Sure, ok. I said it was a wild guess.

? This is a little bizarre...a) I said it was a wild guess, b) I have no problem with the implication it was written in Rome. In fact that would be highly interesting, since the reason I was a bit skeptical is that Rome mostly had only tradition going for it--as I'm sure you know, Mark was in fact traditionally written in Rome.

Within reason, I mean, obviously.

Ok, so...Christianity is indistinguishable from other religions? Are you really saying that? Are you saying that the label "Christianity" is therefore useless? It seems the people of the time thought differently, otherwise they would have called it something else.

In that case...it's the bringing together of the parts that's unique.

I don't know where he got it, either. Maybe there was a founder, maybe there wasn't. Maybe someone else thought of it before Tertullian. Who knows. Hopefully that answers your question.

No, really it doesn't. Perhaps I have my own prejudices and biases, or perhaps I don't, but if I do I'm sure you agree they would have no place here. In this forum, I'm merely trying to engage with the arguments presented, and perhaps present my own. I'm willing to listen to reasonable argument and evidence. I'm also perfectly free to disagree with those arguments and that evidence, and to say so. Why else is this forum here?

You never asked me for my position, but it should be obvious. I'm merely casting a skeptical eye on the idea that none of the gospel of Mark has any source in historical fact. You would think that skepticism would be welcome on this board! I'm sorry if it has felt like an interrogation--I'm not sure what's wrong with asking challenging questions.

I'm simply saying that I think there is some evidence of actual history behind the gospels. I'm trying to enunciate it. Maybe I will succeed, and maybe I will fail. Maybe the results will be inconclusive. That's all.

the_cave

Possibly, but it sure seems easy to explain away a verse by claiming it's an interpolation. It smells of ad hoc-ness.

14:28 might have been added later. It is a very short verse. But it's hard to remove the Galilee reference from 16:7. It seems original.

Interesting that it needs to be in 16:7 if Luke was using Mark...though if Luke was also using Matthew (i.e. instead of Q), he could possibly have gotten the reference from there.

the_cave

IMO, because he needed them in Jerusalem for Pentecost, at the beginning of Acts.

Also, it occurs to me that if Luke knew of 14:28, he didn't invent anything--he just rewrote 16:7 in a way that kept the disciples in Jerusalem.

the_cave

Obviously for the purposes of the argument we are discussing resurrection visions (whatever they might have been), rather than resurrected people walking about.

You must at least agree that Galilee is much smaller than Canada.

I suppose anywhere would have done. If you were visiting me, and I told you to go back to Alaska, would you ask me where exactly did I mean?