Diogenes the Cynic

Mark says ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸ Ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαιῶν - "they went INTO the Mount of Olives - i.e the foot hills. Gethsemane means "oil press" and is traditionally identified with a cave at the foot of the Olivet which did indeed house an olive press. GJohn just says Jeus and the disciples went "over the brook of Kidron," which was in a ravine between the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives. "Over the Kidron" and "into the Mount of Olives" is exactly where pilgrims camped during Passover.
Are you saying that there were no tent villages on the Olivet during Passover? Are you saying people didn't really camp there? Where do you think they camped.

For the record, all I'm saying is that Mark (and independently John) were accurate about where pilgrims camped during Passover. I don't know why you'd call that "fantasy."
It's just a hypothetical. I'm asking why this hypothetical scenario, is inherently less plausible than pure myth.
The only similar detail is the mention of the Kidron Valley and Mount of Olives. There are no parallels in narrative. It's not even really parallel in geography since it has David go to the summit of the mountain rather than a cave at the foot.

stephan huller

The reason myth should be thought to be useful to help explain the gospel is that the tradition which claimed to be especially devoted to the original evangelist says that Jesus was a God rather than man. Your devotion to ehrman in the face of this evidence would be commendable - in a soldier. In a scholar it is thoroughly deplorable

Diogenes the Cynic

Who are you referring to as the "original evangelist?"

outhouse

stop with the clement BS, it's to late to be useful for anything other then theological discussions



what we are left with is cross cultural oral tradion, that the unknown author/s of Gmark used for a audience that amounts to jesus direct enemies. And a few tid bits here and there that are still layered like a onion.

thats why a few decades do matter when trying to find any historicity at all.


We are talking about so little historicity to jesus as it is, without trying to read into material like clement where there is absolutely nothing of value.

outhouse

its all about probablilities


follow the money, and you will follow the truth.

Money states it would make sense to let him go to avoid a all out riot during payday.

At the same exact time, the huge crowd would also make escape a possibility as one could literally disappear is a sea of people.

stephan huller

Vork, I like you but I disagree with you. I do think that both sides in this debate should read more of what the Patristic literature has to say about Mark. The baptism narrative that currently prefaces the canonical text of Mark is not the original. The original had fire appear in the water. The argument is limited to two sides who want to debate the existing material passed on by the fourth century Church.

Another example. Andrew Criddle has pointed out that Ephrem testifies to the existence of a Gospel of Luke which starts with John. The testimony of Tertullian makes clear that this means the baptism of Jesus. People wouldn't know that there were alternative models for the shape of Luke if they weren't aware of these two testimonies.

I am firmly convinced of the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore which speaks of a different shape to Mark. Moreover even the canonical authorities reference different versions of Matthew and John. While I think that we can learn from the efforts of all people, the tendency of people like yourself and Doherty to argue over 'Mark' and the 'Pauline epistles' is stupid. What other word could you use to describe this?

The debate about what mythicism is or what is possible is not limited to what survives. Indeed it is like golfing in a wheelchair in order to open the field to handicapped individuals. Whatever scores you end up with from a wheelchair is not indicative of what would have been possible if you had been allowed the use of your legs. To this end, Mark's actual vision should not limited to canonical Mark, nor should Mark's identity be limited to what we can learn from this text.

You want to limit discussion to the canonical text. That's nice. I think it's misguided or - if the mood should strike me - stupid. Because you should know better. You be aware that there were alternative models for Mark's gospel. For instance I think the Philosophumena's testimony of the Marcionites using a longer version of Mark should also be included. Irenaeus's statement in Against Heresies Book Three Chapter 11 and Book Four Chapter Two. You want certainty so you don't allow for this additional information to be included - but so what? That' s your decision. You've chosen to golf from a wheelchair. I want to golf standing upright.

stephan huller

And please tell me how Michael Turton or Bart Ehrman should be valued more than Clement of Alexandria? This is the part I don't get. Michael Turton could raise the dead, Michael Turton could be twice as smart as Clement (though I am not saying that with any certainty), Clement's opinion still matters more. Why? Because he was active within a hundred years of the earliest date of the composition of Mark and only forty years or so from a second century dating for the text. There were black slaves still living in the United States when I went to high school. Yet the legacy of slavery is still present today. In the very same way it is utterly foolish - stupid - to ignore Clement of Alexandria given that he knows more about Mark's literary intentions than anyone living today.

At the very least anyone claiming to believe in the historical Jesus has to say - maybe he was a mere literary invention because Clement effectively says as much. Maybe the odds are 50-50 or 70 30 after Clement's testimony is made manifest. But the idea that Diogenes can say - "I'll pass on Clement's testimony" I will give it no credence at all, is not just stupid but fucking stupid. The fact that someone living in the city of St Mark and who openly says 'I know what St Mark meant when he wrote Mark 10:17 - 31' or how he developed the liturgy of our tradition because we have a four generation chain back to the evangelist has to raise the bar at least slightly. You can't ignore Clement of Alexandria on the subject of Mark. To do so is unbelievably stupid.

Duvduv

Isn't it more correct to say that Clement of Alexandria matters more because centuries of church doctrine says he does?!

stephan huller

No he's right there! He in the city where Mark wrote his gospel (Clement of Alexandria; John Chrysostom; the Acts of Barnabas etc). The evangelist didn't just take his book to the publisher (or whoever wrote in his name). There is evidence from Irenaeus and other sources that he established a method of interpreting his text too.

I can't be sure that everything that Clement says is the correct interpretation of the gospel in exactly the way Mark laid it down in Alexandria but it's irrelevant. It necessarily better than anything that a modern could come up.

So my point is - we can read what Ehrman has to say or Turton has to say but we weigh Clement's testimony more heavily. Clement presumably knows better than any of them.

I can't believe this is controversial. Is atheism uncontrolled egoism. I couldn't give a flying f--- about any of this. But I would naturally incline in favor of what an ancient witness said about an ancient book over a modern witness. Why is this controversial?

outhouse

that is not logic

not that any author should use worth his salt.



you know I never seen Davey Crocket kill a bear with his bare hands either, and he lived about that same distance from me.


I only know what I read about,and what was on TV. Clement is no different.


To far away from anything to be usefull, your boy is useless. get used to it :talktothehand: