Vinnie

Edited to add link to Michael's article:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_method.html

Turton identifies 7 positive criteria:

1. Embarrassment
2. Difference
3. Growth
4. Rarity
5. Multiple (wide) Attestation
6. Coherence
7. Plausibility

I have listed my positive criteria as follows:

MA= Multiple Attestation
EC = Embarrassment or "Against Grain"
FS = First Stratum
ID = Incidental Detail
F&F = Friend and Foe
DD = Double Dissimilarity
CPD = Contemporary Primary Data
CC = Coherence Criterion
CCAP =Cross Cultural Anthropology Positive

My criteria include forms of these but are a bit more broader. Therefore, when Vorkosigan writes of a third very serious problem with HJ research: "Third, scholars usually lay out a limited number of criteria at the onset of their works, but then in the body of the works deploy a much greater number of criteria, none of which are made formally explicit." His claim is not aplicable to my methodology.

As for Turton's descriptions of the criteria, they were for the most part accurate but they should be a little more lengthy and less prone to being universal facts rather than general principles or guidelines. Historians know they are not like physics equations which yeld certain and correct answers.

Its too easy to knock down straw men with a quick one line explanation or small quote of a criterion. For example, he does not even clarify that many exegetes distinguish between source and form. Therefore, a multiple attested detail that occurs in the Pauline corpus and the synoptics has a two-fold level of multiple attestation.

For Multiple Attestation, Turton writes: "This one is widely used, and simply says that if many independent sources have a story, it is likely to be authentic."

This is grotesquely simplisitc. If a number of sources say Mary ate a potato and then gave birth to donkey we would not care about this claim at all. Why? Because it is nonsensical. People don't give birth to donkeys and the negative criteria clearly reject this sort of material.

The MA criterion is based upon testimony. Eyewitness testimony is great, Independent eye-witness testimony is even better. Unfortunately for Jesus research, there is no eyewitness testimony. But our sources come about a generation after the eyewitnesses and the logistics of multiple attestation is that the more widely known something is in independent sources, the better chance it has of being historical. If our sources were too dated where lines of transmisison are unreasonable MA is useless. Here an important distinction between the consensus and Turton's position on dating needs to be established as if there are no valid lines of transmission then history cannot procede.


Turton writes that multiple attestation means "it is likely to be historical." Some scholars have certainly overpressed this criteria but even Meier and others have clearly recognized and articulated material, in print, about the limitations of this criterion--and all criteria. Turton doesn't mention this and instead knocks down the straw man he constructed.

A detail with multiple attestation is not "Likely to be historical", but for the historian probing ancient sources it is said that multiple attestation grants an event or saying a greater chance of being historical. This is merely the inverse of what Turton's negative criteria do: "IMPAIR historicity". Impair means it is less likely it is history. It does not mean it is very likely it did not happen. If a number of negative criteria converge then I would say very likely it didn't happen and the opposite if a number of positive criteria converge.

That of course depends on what criteria we are discussing though. If it says a man walks on water we can stop there. It didn't happen. But all the criteria are hardly as strong as "the miraculous is not history." They are weaker (the positive and negative ones) and need to work in tandem and with one another.

Neither of these exegetes have mercilessly exposed positive criteria. The exegetes who use them have already articulated their weaknesses. The skeptics, in reality, have nothing left to do but rehash what the proponents write. Crossan also uses numerous positive criteria. Turton has consistently failed to understand what Crossan meant in that chapter.

Crossan's methodology uses embarrassment, multiple attestation and so on. Crossan places great emphasis on cross cultural anthropology and also on source stratification. He critiques Meier for not having a theoretical basing. What he actually argues is that Meier's lack of a solid theoretical basing makes his criteria incapable of reconstructing an HJ. Why? Because each criteria in itself has limitations and none guarantee historicity so they must be based upon a stratification and we should procees from stronger to weaker which hels bifurcate streams of development better than sliding around randomly.
.

But as Meier writes: "Like all the other criteria we will examine, however, the criterion of embarrassment has its limitations and must always be used in concert with the other criteria." Meier v.1 Marginal p. 170

Also on p. 173 in the context of multiple attestation Meier writes, "Once again, we are reminded that that no criterion can be used mechanically and in isolation; a convergence of different criteria is th best indicator of historicity."

"I have stressed the limitations and problems inherent in eachg criterion lest any single criterion seem a magic key unlocking al ldoors. Only a careful use of a number of criteria in tandem, with allowances for mutual correction, can produce convincing results." p. 184. Meier also goes on to note that "the use of valid criteria is more an art than a science, requiring sensitivity to the individual case rather than the mechanical implemetnation. It can never be said too many times that such an art usually yields only varying degrees of probability, not absolute certitude." (ibid).

The whole Meier//Crossan methodology debate is all smoke and mirrors. They employ virtually the same criteria and logistics. Crossan has a much larger stockpile of first stratum sources, however. Meier has none. This is the chief difference between the two exegetes. Different methodological phrasings are minimal in comparison.

Crossan, himself even notes this (if implicilty):

Either Crossan misread Meier or his critique is accurate and Meier simply suspends his own methodology by sliding from one criteria to another. The latter would shock no one as it happens frequently and it makes better sense as Crossan uses the same method frequently.

But that doesn't mean Meier's "wooden" methodology is of no use. Crossan grants it operational status and I am sure would agree with a large number of its results if not for source and other considerations where he disagrees with Meier on.

Plausibility has its benefits. For example, it is implausible that Jesus' disciples were as stupid as Mark portrays them. Plausible to who, though? Us or Mark's audience? Also was there a high degree of skepticism and distrust of wandering charismatics or cynics or whoever the hell Jesus was? Maybe there was a historical basing. That is the problem that confronts the historian either way. Certainty is not to be had.

But yes, plausibility can occur in both fiction and history but if we are trying to sift through a combination of fiction and history this critieria (its positive and negative application) will have some use, but only in tandem with all other positive and negative criteria.

For example, if you have a widespread (multiply attested) detail that is plausible and embarrassing (not likely to be created) then the ancient historian is going to grant this incident provisional historicity.

Coherence as framed by Meier is rather weak. Turton is correct on this,

First I recommend Turton change this to "early Christian texts" rather then New Testament text. THe NT is hardly the whole or only corpus and is not necessarily even the earliest. Their is a broader sprectrum of writings that a number of scholars use.

Also, "important stories" could be worded better. Important to who? By important does Turton mean "widely accepted"? Also, Paul mentions crucifixion and even inherited this view so it does not stem from Mark. Mark may have created tons of details. I think this is what Turton actually means. He may wish to just clarify it a pinch.

Discontinuity is only as strong as our understanding of the surrounding culture. What this criteria looks for is "likeliness to be created". Turton should grant the logistics of it. After all, he uses its inverse in these negative criteria:

Criteria 5: Where themes and motifs occur that are common in stories from antiquity, historicity is severely impaired.

Criteria 6: Signals of creation from the Old Testament, such as parallels, citations, and allusions, severely impairs historicity.

This is just the inverse of Turton's negative criteria. Where signals of creation are absent, where themes and motifs from the known record are absent and so on, it is less likely to have been created. Also, when this is coupled with say Multiple attestation it becomes stronger.

Turton also asks if this criteria is not "assuming what it must prove" but all his skepticism is so equally applicable to many of his negative criteria. For example, are parallels, citations and allusions to the OT actually signals of creation? THis is HARDLY the case. It is easy to document instances where known history was cast in light of the OT. Its only the details that become suspect, not the gist of the story itself.

But Turton mentions all this at the end of his page. Despite some of Turton's negative criteria having limitations, they are still useful, especially in tandem with one another. But my major point of contention is that he is unwilling to grant the same to the positive criteria and this is a signal of a lack of objectivity on his part. As Turton writes on the problem of Jesus methodology: "First, there is the problem of their inherent subjectivity." He himself is not immune to his own criticisms and has offered us only a way to disconfirm historicity and nothing to confirm it. This is hardly how history or historians work.

This study is plagued with a one side-bias. One side of the story is treated acurately and objectively for the most part, but the other is not. There is even tension between them as he accepts a naegative criteria but then denies its inverse built on the same type of logistics. Turton has backed himself into a corner and made a mess of things.

Again, the gospels are not the total story. We habe sayings lists, miracle lists, family members, contemporary primary data and so on. Yes we know that there was an HJ and the details of his life were mixed with a lot of fiction. This is not a fault of the method. That you are an HJ agnostic and cater to mythicist views has no baring on methodology and the scholarly consensus which accepts this mixture. Whether scholars have good reason for believing history is mixed with fiction here is another matter. Determining how to pull fact from this material is another. They should be dealt with separately. This is a straw man argument. We should also distinguish between the different literary genre of early Christian works as opposed to say Tolkienn's LotR trilogy, point out that we have contemporary primary data for some of the material embedded withing the gospels which easily puts us into this category.

Turton's skepticism has more merit if we date all the gospels to the second century as he does but the cosnensus dating and the consensus view on the Pauline corpus doesn't leave much room. He can hardly fault scholars for using methods based upon source stratification that is not the same as his. Rather, he needs to fault to their source stratification or evauluate their methods from within their own framework which it is built upon, not his own.

An example of this occurs when he critiqued Ludemann's fifth negative criteria: "Finally, Criterion 5 contains a massive a priori. There is no reason to assume that Jesus addressed only Jews, for according to the Markan narrative he was from the least Judaized place in Palestine, Galilee, and must have come into constant contact with non-Jews during his travels across Upper and Lower Israel."

This criterion is based upon the notion that Jesus conducted his ministry to Jews, and primarily Jews, if not exclusivley. The multiplte attestation of this notion, its earliness and unlikeliness to be created by the pro-Gentile Paul or synoptic authors strongly converge in its favor. Also, the lack pro-Gentile material in the very pro-Gentile Mark shows he 1) was not at liberty to invent this material and 2) material of this nature was simply not available to him which or the other evangelists otherwise they scarcely could be seen as not having made use of it. Also Jesus' initial followers settled where, in the heart of the land--Jerusalem--continued in their Judaism, temple worship, food laws and so on. Ludemann knows all this and Turton incorrectly accused him of an a priori. Rather, his negative criteria is built upon a minor core of material.

This is really what a method does, it does not argue for core material like this. Such material as this and say the crucifixion is what scholars can build criteria on. Fredriksen begins with Jesus' death, the most surest thing we can know about him and works from there. Sanders has a core of material and then argues from there.

Asking how we get this core is certainly valid but virtually ALL scholars accept a certain core and the method and recontruction usually begins from there, as Ludemann's obviously does. They make a method for sifting a fact/fiction mixture.

Scholars all have a general idea of the very minimal Jesus components. He was Jewish movement starter in the first third of the first century, had close followers and was crucified. Its the mission and message of Jesus that scholars go for. They do not ask, "did J exist.". They address "What was J like?"
scholarshp

It actually has some merit in a number of cases. The food laws is one. Mark 7 fits this perfectly but we should also note that the majority of exegetes reconstruct a Jesus who died untimely and who thought and imminent end was at hand----a VERY IMMINENT end. Under this view, one should grant this criteria a high degree of priority. I mean think about it. "The world is ending tomorrow. Shit, I need to book my summer vacation before it does." The logistics are clear here.

Here Turton critiques Ludemann but offers this same criterion in his listing of negative criteria. Number 7: Markan style/redaction impairs historicity.Turton should make up his mind here. Does Ludemann assume "EVERYTHING" is unauthentic or is he more open about it rather thinking that "late redaction is a sign of unhistoricity" not a garuantor of it?

One would argue it was offensive to Mark who is clearly pro-Gentile. It had to be wide-spread for Mark to include it. Mark actually tries to softens the account placing it where he does. His audience may have known it and lamented over it. But if we grant the Jewish nature of Jesus' mission then embarrassment does not apply as this could have been created during the early Jew/Gentile problems. We know this was firmly embedded and that Jesus conducted his ministry primarily to Jews. The real question were some Christians opposed enough to Gentiles to be viewed as creating this? If yes it cannot be secured as historical, if th evidence for this is sparse then we might be inclined to ascribe it a higher level of confidence.

But the account is laden with Marcan style and vocabulary. This is important though because as Turton writes: "Markan style/redaction impairs historicity.: This is true but in this case it is not applicable because this looks nothing like soemthing Mark would wholesale create and looks like something Mark would alter//attempt to soften. We may have ti simple shrug our shoulders here.

Well, I agree that a lack of negative criteria is a good sign for historicity. I actually have that scale. The less negative and the more positive the more likely historicity is. This doesn't happen in a lot of cases, however.


Turton then lists a number of negative criteria that he employs:

This is compeltely accurate.

I would grant htis but the instances where this could be applied are probably minimal. Its interesting that Turton would apply this criteria but dismiss so strongly the dissimilarity criterion.


This would be helpful is accompanied by an example. For example, Judas betrayed Jesus to his death. If Judas is hsown to be none historical is then the crucifixion as well? HARDLY. We must remember that when history is merged with fiction history can be cast withing and be in the end dependent upon some fiction.

The problem is that is that there are many discrete units in the Gospels and they occur together and separate from one another in different sources and in some certain facts are mentioned or alluded to.

Agreed here. Silence is not a guarantee as exegesis based upon what the exegete does not say is somewhat subjective but this criteria is still very useful. Also sometimes the Christian sources may be accurate over outside sources. For example, see Mark vs JBap on the nature of Jbaps baptism. Mark's account actually appears more trustworthy on this than Josephus's.

Agreed unless it can be shown to have likely been a redaction//creation of the outside writer. In this case Josephus is a prime candidate for his baptist material.

Jesus was Jew and must be seen as appealing to themes, motifs and common stories. We should also note that it is very easy for history to be cast in with common themes and motifs.

This criteria assumes what it needs to prove. Rather, they may simple be signals of casting an event in light of the OT. In some cases it should be granted that the context, placement and citation is an actual signal of creation but this is hardly true in all cases.

Agreed. One evidence is that of all the authors we have, they redact things in various ways and their theologies have subtle and more major differences which lead to contradictory material. Redaction is a style of altering material to fit your views. But all "redactional" material comes from a single source and this has very poor attestation by defaul. I use "poor attestation" as a negative criteria and htis is the reason redaction is usely as a negative criteria. But this should be addressed. Redactors apparently are interested in theology rather than history as well.

Agreed. The food law nullification is a major holwer here.


Jesus couldn't have alluded to or used these sources in his own teaching? He couldn't act out a "prophecy" in an earlier source (the riding into Jerusalem on a colt thing)??? Why not? Not saying he did but can you provide a concrete example of what you mean?


This is false. Mark gets Jewish handwashing customs flat wrong in chapter 7. This however, does NOT mean Jesus never disputed over the issue or that any of the sayings on that topic in Mark have no historial core. Rather their details may be redactional and they were cast as Marl saw fit, but this does not eliminate a potential core. Just thta Mark may have added inaccurate information to some core data that he also redacted to fit his stlye and views (e.g. directed at Pharisees).

A Jewish man's death sparked a rapidly ever growing religion. Doesn't seem plausible. None of the other crucified Jews caused such a ruckus. But this undoubtedly occured.

Jesus dieing due to temple ruckus seems plauslbe but that mightn ot be history either, Plausibility is weak both ways equally, positively and negatively. Turton fails to notice this in his inconsistent disdain for all positive criteria

Who determines what is plausible and what isn't? Plausible to who? How do we know hat was plausible in the first century world? Take all of Turton's skepticism on discontinuity as being applicable here:

Turton: ""Discontinuity" presents several problems. Why limit the discontinuity to early Judaism? Doesn't that assume what it is trying to prove? Is there something out there that can be identified as "early Judaism?" Who defines it? How? Who defines how much difference is required to make a discontiuity? What constitutes such a difference? Similarly, Lüdemann offers the criterion of rarity, "which relates to those actions and sayings of Jesus that have few parallels in the Jewish sphere. Jesus absolute prohibition against judging (Matt 7.1) is a candidate for this." The critical reader will note several problems. First, how many parallels constitute "few?" Second, what is the "Jewish sphere?" Do we count only those who resided in Palestine? Do sophisticated Hellenized Jews influenced by Stoic philosophies like Philo count? How about the Herodians and their families? Lüdemann gives us no clue in setting boundaries, so ultimately criteria like this lose all meaning.

Turton gives us no clue in setting boundaries, so ultimately criteria like this lose all meaning.

Turton is modest in the final section on "Application" and that is a healthy reservation on his part. Granted his cavalier dismissal of positive criteria, he cannot be so crass as to trumpet his own brand of fallible, methodologically limited and and often subjective criteria to determine non-historicty. His negative criteria are built upon the same logistics as many of the positive ones and many of them are hardly any stronger or less prone to error or are donors of certainty.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Thanks! Good point.

No Vinnie, I don't because "discontinuity" as NT scholars use it assumes that it should be limited to the "culture" in question. It's doubly meaningless (why limit it to the Jewish culture?)(What is 'culture'?).

If you really wrote this, then you don't understand anything I said.

1. The positive criteria do not work. They turn fiction into fact.
2. "That is not the way historians work" is not a valid objection, since the Gospels are not history. I wrote: In this Commentary I do not proceed from the axiomatic assumption that there is history in the Gospel of Mark and then work to pare down specific pericopes in search of the historical kernel." See, real historians don't work with the axiom that there is history in a document. I am working exactly as real historians work, Vinnie -- turning skeptical guns on a suspect text.
3. I simply was out to reduce not eliminate subjectivity.

Vinnie, the only evidence for a "ministry" is in the Gospels. You cannot decide, prior to your reading of them, what is true about them. The a priori stands. I rejected it for sound reasons.

We do not have any of these things. They are inventions of faulty positive criteria. All of these things are most probably fictions from the hand of Mark. Each and every miracle in the Gospel of Mark is most probably a fiction.

No, they are related...the scholar consensus has no valid methodology, so appealing to it is empty.

Genre has nothing to do with it. Whether you call it an apocalyptic historical monograph, an aretology, Greek popular biography, Attic Drama, or whatever, you still need a methodology for determining what is true and what is not. Labeling the gospels with a cute label doesn't change that simple fact.

a priori. One could just as well argue that Mark was pro-Jewish, for Jews are presented quite sympathetically in Mark in many cases.

It is a typical miracle story exactly like all the others, with a chreia structure and a similar formula. It is also shot through with motifs of the Elijah-Elisha cycle. In short, historicity is not supportable here.

Reading the author's mind. A priori nonsense.

More assumptive a priori nonsense. We don't grant, Vinnie, what we can't prove. That's the difference between your system and mine. No evidence supports this claim of yours -- it is an assumption of source criticism.

Duh. That's why I didn't use this example, Vinnie. There are a couple of examples in the commentary.

First, there is no core data here (hint -- what are the disciples eating?). Second, the negative criteria "impair historicity" in the sense that the more of them there are clustered around a specific scene, the bigger the problem you are going to have demonstrating it is historical.

Reading what you wrote, you didn't really catch the nuances of where I am going. It is clear that I must be a little clearer. But I thought that:

Rather, I have piled up my criteria to make a judgment about whether someone who wanted to support the historicity of the events under discussion could actually do so.

This was clear. Evidently not so. Let me repeat: I am not demonstrating that Mark is fiction. What I am showing is that its historicity cannot be demonstrated because Mark is absolutely studded with signs of invention.

Vinnie, alas, neither read the commentary nor understood what I was talking about. If you actually read the texts where this criteria is applied, reasons are giving for historical implausibility. And note that this criteria is never used on its own, nor did I say that it can solve problems by itself. Note that it is the last criteria listed, hence, one of the weakest.

I will expand the discussion at the bottom. Many thanks for your critique, but essentially, it goes wrong because the underlying assumptions you have about sources are not supported by the texts in question. This is shown by your comments here:

There are no "discrete units" in the Gospels. That is an assumption of Crossan's method. My Commentary clearly shows why this is false. The various stories cannot be disagregated because the "discrete units" all can be traced back to Mark and because the discrete units appear to have their origin in the OT. Crossan's methodology is an utter misreading of the reality of the interrelations among these texts. I'll do an excursus on Crossan next week, I think.

Further, there are no "facts" -- that is an assumption of scholarly methodology. It must be demonstrated, and my commentary shows why it cannot be. Because, again, almost everything in the Gospel looks like it was invented by Mark working from a source.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

I am humbled by your work Vork. Amazing shit! Your site will definitely be a valuable resource and an important site on GMark exegesis and research.

One question though:
Whats the difference between implausibility and violation of common sense?

This is just great man! :thumbs:

Vinnie

""""""""No Vinnie, I don't because "discontinuity" as NT scholars use it assumes that it should be limited to the "culture" in question. It's doubly meaningless (why limit it to the Jewish culture?)(What is 'culture'?).""""""""

Then so too is your implausibility criterion doubly meaningless since you obviously have no way of determing what actions would have been "implausible" for a first century Jew.

And the answer is simple. Jesus was a Jew in the first third of the first century C.E. Its most appropriate to locate him in this context and mor importantly, there is absolutely nothing to suggest otherwise.

Your negative criteria turn fact into fiction. Especially criteria 5 and 6. And as I noted we only use the criteria in certain source stratifications. Its case specific and your objection of them fails to understand this. The criteria only work in tandem with source stratification and probable lines of transmission being extant.

Don't delude yourself in thinking you are in the consesus on this. All historians think there is some history in the Gospels concerning Jesus.

Your negative criteria are only as valuable as the positive ones. In your view they are worthless. Some are better than others however.

Jesus was a Jewish religion starter. Obviously he had a "ministry//following" of some form. Whether we had the gospels or not we know this. Josephus alone would tell us this. Not to mention Paul, the Gospels and all the sayings material.

Umm, I would think most scholars agrees there are discrete units thrown together in the Gospel of Mark. Extremely few would agree with you on them all being Markan fictions. Virtually all scholars locate a number of pre-Markan sources that its author used. These are NOT, as you incorrectly asser, built upon the positive HJ criteria. This all goes back to Schmidt (1919) and form and source criticism in general.

I hope you don't base a total lack of pre-markan sources on your worthless negative criteria!

And all the natue defying miracles of Mark are fiction. The ones explaianble by placebo are not open to such dismissal.

The scholarly consensus on Jesus and a few facts about him is prety straightforward. But I have no need to appeal to that.

Yep, and this is what the criteria do. If someothing has MA its earlier than both sources. If something is embarrssing its not likely to be created. When positive criteria are combined they lead to a pro-history view. They are not infallible and neither are your negative criteria which impair history. But if we have several positives converging and negatives absent we are on good grounds.

And each work is different, has different biases, may use different language and terms and appeal to different things. Each has to be located within its own context.

To say Mark was pro-Gentile does not say anything one way or another about his view on Jews. If this is your view, fine. I'm not interested in convoluting the issue with red herrings, however. It is factual that Mark was very much pro-Gentile. Therefore, material which leans against this grain....

Helaing at a distance? This is a red herring. We all know thats not history. Its the saying we are discussing.

Again your inconsistency is alarmingly obvious. When you claim Mark composed something out of the OT are you NOT NOT NOT in effect reading his mind somewhat? I would not dispute this and thus neither can you then dispute what I have done. If you have a problem with the exegesis then go for. Its plain and simple as I have argued here in the past. Mark flushes the account out with a miracle story and the fact that it occurs just after the food laws and other Jew-Gentile stuff is hardly a coincidence.

Apparently, the only time exegesis is history is when you perform it and the only time criteria are valid is when you use them. Your solipsist historical approach will certainly never meet peer reviewed standards.

That was the whole POINT! I was speculating as to all the possible ways the tradition could have been created or came into existence.

What examples did you use? I didn't make it through the commentary yet. Link to them.

First, what does it matter what they are eating? Second, the positive criteria work in the same way. The more of them there are clustered around a specific scene, the bigger the problem we are going ot have if we want to say a scene is not historical

So you are a defnse attornery for Jesus mythiscism. Turton's goal: history. No, thats false. Turton's Goal: Find Reasonable Doubt by appealing to emotion via subjective criteria.

Of course Mark is fiction. Wrede and Schmidt showed this at the beginning of the century. Of course Mark actively shaped the traditions he inherited and created things. The positive and negative criteria work in tandem to try and sift out what look more likely to be created and what looks more likely to be inherited and possibly historical.

Well, I agree I didn't read the commentary yet. I want to address the logistics of your methodology before seeing how its applied. And I agree that most all criteria (positive or negative) have to be used in tandem and that both positive and negative need to be used in tandem with one another.

Your welcome and I feel I am on firm ground with Mark using pre-existent material.


This is not an assumption of Crossan. Its an asusmption of scholarship in general. Form and source criticism have led most scholars here. And Mark shaped what he inherited. Those who think Mark was just a collector of tradition are apatently false. NT intros have long noted this (e.g. Kummel, p. 64). Therefore, Marks hand smooth over and integrated his material.

Vinnie

Vinnie

In Mark 12, the evangelists uses "parables" (plural) but only one parable follows. "He then began to speak to them in parables". This leads some scholars to think that Mark was using a parable source.

Many scholars think there is evidence Mark and John shared a miracle list. For example, John Dominic Crossan has a "Miracles Collection" in his inventory of the Jesus tradition and source stratification: "Now embedded within the Gospels of Mark and John. Of the seven miracles in John 2-9, the five in John 5, 6 (two), 9, 11 that have Markan parallels appear in the same order in Mark 2, 6 (two), 8." [4]

Helmut Koester writes similarly, "Among other narrative materials used by Mark were one or tow catenae of miracle stories, probably in written form. They exhibit certain similarities to the material that was collected in the Semia Source of the Gospel of John; compare the stilling of the tempest (Mark 4:35-41 ; also Mark 6:45-52) with John 6:16-21, the feeding of the multitudes (Mark 6:30-44; also Mark 8:1-10) with John 6:1-13, the healing of the blind man (Mark 8:22-26; also Mark 10:46-52) with John 9:1-7..

These stories of Jesus' exorcisms, however, have no parallels in the Fourth Gospel and must have been derived from a different collection which could have comprised Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29. That such collections existed in written form prior to the composition of Mark is fairly certain. But it is not possible to determine either the exact extent of these sources or their precise wording." [5]

Koester also writes that "With respect to the sources for sayings materials, written documents used by Mark are clearly recognizable: a collection of parables (4:1-34) and a composition of apocalyptic materials (13:1-37)." [6] There is also evidence that topical collections of short stories which conclude with a saying of Jesus (these are officially termed "apophthegmata") existed before the composition of Mark (see just below).

With all this, then, we have good evidence that Pre-Markan Jesus followers preserved Jesus' material (sayings and actions), collected it into topical lists and distinct categories (miracles, parables, exorcisms).

Ted Hoffman

You are not addressing Vork's argument. His argument is that the 'dicontinuity' is doubly meaningless because:
a) The term 'Jewish culture' has no clear meaning
b) Its not explained why discontinuity should be limited to early Judaism.

You have simply responded with a tu quoque without demonstrating the weakness of Vork's argument wrt discontinuity.

There is no reason to believe this piece of dogma.

Its part of the above dogma.
Again, you fail to address the arguments.
This is all fine but it fails to address the arguments. Vork's work is a commentary on the Gospel of Mark, not of Christian Documents.
Which poll are you referring to? Or is this a statement of hope?
Are 'historians' the most authoritative people to comment on the historicity of NT characters and events?
In any case, what they 'think' is irrelevant. What is important is the evidence, the literary evidence, archaeology, external tangents, conclusions from biblical criticism (form, source, higher, lower, redaction criticism etc) etc.

Surely Vinnie, you know us better than to make empty claims about what unnamed Historians think regarding alleged traces of the past. Why waste time with such statements?This is false. Epistle to Diognetus (which is in Kirby's site) has a Christian state that God never sent a human messenger to earth to start Christianity. Hebrews 8:4 says "If Jesus came to earth", meaning, that Jesus never came to Earth. Shepherd of Hermas has a heavenly 'son of Man' No Jesus. Odes of Solomon has a 'son' but no Jesus. Tatian's Apology to the Greeks has no Jesus either.

To a number of early Christians, Christianity was complete without a founder figure.

You are laboring under heavy gospel influence.
No. He cites verses and shows parallels.
You dont get it: there is no reliable way of knowing what was embarassing to the author.

Vorkosigan

That's right. That is why I reject all "cultural" aspects of plausibility. For example, commenting on Doughty's reading of Mk 1:28, I write

• "Doughty's argument that the disciples would not have been preparing nets or fishing on the Sabbath, so the two pericopes cannot be connected, is problematical. People are not culturebots."

Similarly,on 15:46, I note:

• v46: Some commentators have argued that Joseph would not have been able to purchase a linen shroud on a high feast day, for what merchant would have sold it to him? However, humans are not culturebots. Such stereotyping of all Jews as pious feast-observers has no place in a serious analysis of human behavior. No doubt just as everywhere else in the world, there were plenty of merchants willing to make a quick buck selling needed goods at a premium on a high feast day. For that matter, not all the merchants in Jerusalem were Jews.

The only plausibility I accept is "historical" plausibility, not cultural. Thus I consider it highly implausible that Pilate offered Barabbas to the crowd, since that does not follow the practice, custom, or law of any Roman governor.

It's a nice piece of rhetoric, anyway....


For readers, here are 5 & 6.

Criteria 5. Where themes and motifs occur that are common in stories from antiquity, historicity is severely impaired.

Criteria 6: Signals of creation from the Old Testament, such as parallels, citations, and allusions, severely impair historicity

But these are used by scholars of all stripes to cast doubt on historicity, in many different fields of historical analysis.

It is not that I do not "understand" source stratification. It is that I reject it because Crossan's strata are a delusion of (1)incorrect textual relationships and (2) incorrect readings of the text. Let me give you an example or two.

Crossan accepts the Prophet's Own Country as a multiply attested 'complex' in Thomas, Mark (Luke and Matt), and John. Looking at the textual relationships, all of those depend on Mark. Looking at the textual reading, this saying in Mark is permeated with Markan themes, including faith and miracles, sarcastic irony that actually correctly identifies Jesus, and Jesus teaching. Second, it contains a chreia that is common in antiquity; namely, that prophets are not honored in their own land. As my note on 6:4 says:

• Donahue and Harrington (2002, p185) point to numerous examples both in Hellenistic literature (rejection of philosophers) and in the OT on the theme of rejection of prophets. For example, they note, Dio Chrysostom, in Discourses (47.6), says "it is the opinion of all philosophers that life is difficult in their native land." They also point out that the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:3 (LXX) is without honor (atimos).

Now, you can claim that this is historical, but there is no multiple attestation, and the saying was a common one in antiquity. Bultmann pointed out decades ago that sayings accrue to great men. Can you indicate how you know that this saying goes back to Jesus, when the context is clearly Markan creation, and the saying is a commonplace?

Another one is the rejected Cornerstone saying, found in Mark (luke and Matt), Thomas, and Barnabas. Again, Mark precedes all of these and they all depend on Mark. Further, to imagine this as a floating saying is to imagine folly. In Mark this relates to three citations of Psalms that relate to Simon Maccabaeus, and it is part of a key structure in Mark, and forms a perfect cap to the Parable of the Tenants. The two are integral. Davies and Johnson went totally wrong in their reading of Thomas, and if you go to my Excursus on Mark and Thomas you'll soon see why they went bad.

Yet another fascinating Crossan misreading is the Eye, Ear, Mind 'complex' which he has down as 1 Cor 2:9, 1 Clem, Thom, Luke/Matt, and Dialogue of the Savior. Somehow he missed that it occurs in Mark 8:17-18, and that -- duh -- it is taken from Deut 29:2-4, and thus, cannot be said to go back to the HJ. Instead, it's a simple case of textual transmission, Paul to Mark to everyone else. It's errors like that in both reading and relationships that eventually made me give up on Crossan. He's brilliant, and his handling of language is without peer. But he's completely wrong in his understanding of the intertextual relationships.

A similar problem occurs in Mark 3, where Crossan identifies a complex of "Jesus True Family" found in Thomas, Mark, Matt/Luke, 2 Clem, and Ebionites. This is a massive error, again. First, this "complex" is part of a passage taken from the OT, as Price points out. Second, the saying is a Cynic commonplace. Thus, there is no independent saying, but a story invented by Mark, and there is no special tradition, but instead a Hellenistic commonplace. There's no there there. Strata are a delusion of method, not a reality of tradition.

You bet. And yet, they seem curiously unable to demonstrate this.

Josephus does not tell us that he had a ministry. In any case that is an interpolation. Further, we are discussing Mark. There is nothing in Mark that one can point to and say -- oh yes, there is the evidence. Everything about it is a creation of the writer.

I agree. The debate is not over whether there were sources, but what they were. There's hardly a story in Mark that doesn't go back to the OT in one form or another.

I hope you don't actually think that I believe there are no pre-Markan sources!

No, that is why I do not dismiss them for being supernatural. They are, however, clearly creations off the OT. In many cases the writer cites the passage he is copying.

Thanks! You reminded me of the last excursus I wanted to write.....

Incorrect on two grounds. As Hoffman already pointed out, no one knows what was embarrassing to the author. Additionally, embarrassing stories are created all the time, to cover still more embarrassing ones.

Unfortunately there is not a single incident in the life of Jesus for which that is true. All of them are impaired by negative criteria.

....is a creation of Mark.

Right. And the saying is a chreia variant. It's a typical structure of Hellenistic antiquity. The healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman is also shot through with motifs from the Elijah-Elisha cycle.

If there was no evidence for that, then you might be correct. But Mark frequently cites the OT passages he used to create his stories. For example, in the raising of Jairus daughter he cites the passage in Kings.

I agree! It stinks of construction of fictional narrative.

Anyone can use the criteria I use. All of them are used by peer-reviewed scholars in peer-reviewed publications -- where do you think I got them from? Why the descent from cogent comment to spastic outburst?

See the discussion on Pilate and Barabbas.

Vinnie, first, they are eating the magic bread that was created in the previous pericope. Thus the event in question did not occur. Hence, the context is a construction of Mark.

The difference is philosophical. No matter how many positive criteria support a scene -- such as Jesus' exorcisms -- if they are supernatural, then they are unhistorical. It only takes one powerful negative criterion to undo a whole stack of positive ones.

Once again, we descent from cogent comment to emotional outburst.

The existence of a tradition stemming from Jesus is an assumption of scholars. There is no independent evidence to support it. All of the sayings in Mark are Hellenistic or Jewish commonplaces, or occur as commonplace structures. The parables appear to be creations of Mark. The events of Mark appear to be rip-offs of the OT, and the structure of Mark follows Hellenistic literary and dramatic conventions. There's nothing in Mark to indicate any tradition.

Vinnie, the reason I abandoned positive criteria is because they cannot work in tandem with negative criteria. Where they clash there is NO WAY to resolve the clash. And they clash constantly.

Me too! The argument is over what the material was. As far as I can see the pre-existent material in Mark is largely Cynic and OT in nature.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

That's reading it WAY too literally. The verse is from the hand of Mark.

No kidding. In fact, John copied Mark's work. It is interesting that arguments from order are used to show that Matt copied Mark, but in the case of John, they only have a shared list. See the problem there?

That's a howl, because they are fictional in every respect. First, there is the presence of the supernatural. Second is the presence of Markan motifs, such as the demons identifying Jesus. Third are the links to the OT, particularly the Elijah-Elisha Cycle in Kings in Mark 1:21-28 and 7:24-30. Fourth is the presence of conventional healing formulae. Fifth, of course, is the signal of other sources in Mark 5:1-20. You can't create a category and call it "exorcism stories" and then claim that they all belonged in some text together somewhere, when Mark 5:1-20 (Gerasene Demoniac) clearly refers to other events and has other sources. Finally, Koester left out the stilling of the waves, in which Jesus "rebukes" the waves as he does a demon, and is clearly represented as exorcising the Sea of Galilee. More OT creation and relation of other ancient Jewish lit. Mark made these babies up.

All made up by Mark, using typical motifs found in the OT, Paul, and Hellenistic culture. Go and read my notes and remarks in chapter 4.

Another howler, as Mark made up the Parable of the Watchers, which signals the schedule of events in the Passion, and the rest is built out of the OT and Mark's experience of persecution in his own time, whenever that was. It also appears to be related to the Elijah-Elisha Cycle, and functions as a prediction of his Passion as well, another fiction. In other words, Mark wrote this.

There's no "evidence" for this outside the assumptions of form and source criticism. The conclusions that Mark used some tradition from Jesus is not supported by anything in Mark.

Vorkosigan