jjramsey

When I've read articles from conference proceedings, I've seen little difference between those articles and those of journals. There is still an abstract and references, and the style is the same formal style as in the journals on those topics.

manwithdream

Malachi151,

I didn't read you whole paper, but after I read part of it I decided to comment on it. I think your ideas are interesting, but I think you should aim at average people and not at scholars. I also think that your paper would be easier to understand if you would spell out what you are saying and not expect people to figure things out. For example, you mention that a naked person ran away in one story and you show quotes from a prophet that mentions the naked running away. You wrote both quotes with bold print to show the connection, but I think you should really specifically say that these quotes are connected and why, and not expect people to figure out things on their own. It is hard to read a few quotes in the Bible and see the connections if you are not used to studying the Bible, so I think you should give the quotes and then specifically point out why the bold parts are connected. I thought that was a very interesting thing you mentioned, but I don't know if every commentary about these quotes mentions these things or if this is your own idea. The same thing with the fig tree story. Is your explanation yours only or do other people mention it too?

In your explanation of the fig story, if I understood you correctly, you were saying that the story was written to fit the prophecy, so that shows that it did not really happen. I don't think you explain why that would be true since a story could have happened in reality even if it sounds like something mentioned in a prophecy.

I think you should simplify what you are saying and not try to impress people with scholarly sounding language but with your interesting ideas. If the rest of your ideas are like the first few I have read so far and they are your own ideas, then I think your work could be interesting to average people too and not just scholars. I know that on this discussion forum most people like scholarly books and articles, but I just like interesting ideas that I can understand. I think there are other people out there who like the same thing.

I don't usually read articles about the New Testament because I am not interested in the subject that much, but I'll try to look at more of the article later.

Kenneth Greifer

Malachi151

Mine.

No. There is no concept of prophecy fulfillment in the Gospel of Mark other than fulfillment of Jesus' prophecies within the story. These are literary allusions, not attempts at framing prophecies. These literary allusions were then picked up by later Gospel writers and framed as prophecies, especially in the Gospels of Matthew and John.

This was just a condensed version of a much larger writing I have made on this subject purely for the purpose of trying to present it for the SBL.

The larger writing is here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

You can buy the book version from the link at the bottom of the page.

Malachi151

Well I have, and I've written two books on the subject, totally about 500 pages, and done plenty of research, but I don't have a background in theological studies. I don't have all day to read everything that everyone else has written on the subject. I have a full time software development job, plus I run my own side company, plus I have a kid on the way, plus I do about 1 speaking presentation a month on various subjects, which are usually new topics each time.

I don't have time and will never have time to write some fully footnoted article that blows all the right cocks to please "experts" on this subject, and that's just the way it is.

Jeffrey Gibson

It isn't a matter of pleasing anyone. It's a matter of your professionalism and competency and your living up to the claims you make that you are speaking authoritatively and knowledgeably on matters Markan, and that you have the expertise in ancient literature and biblical studies that you are claiming you have when you put yourself forth, as you do, as one whose views on Mark's genre and purpose are true and need to be taken seriously.

I wonder how well your business would be received if you appealed to a lack of time to produce the product that you should be producing as an excuse for a failure on your part to do what is necessary for your product to be any good?

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

I know how you feel. This is why it is worth the tax-payer stumping up to fund people to research full-time; because it is incredibly difficult to keep abreast of the field and do and write up professional research while holding down a job to do something else.

This is one reason why I have never felt the urge to attempt to publish anything myself; I'm not qualified in terms of education, and I lack the time for the detailed research necessary.

I tend to feel that quite a bit of anglophone publication is of an inadequate standard anyway, in these respects. There is no purpose to adding to the litter of articles and PhD theses, none of which serve any useful purpose. And, unless one goes into every detail, crosses every 't' and dots every 'i', fundamentally one's research is unfit for purpose.

If we see a published article which we feel that we as amateurs could have written, with a bit of time -- and one does, in theology -- it's probably a good sign that the article was not of a good enough standard. (IMHO) The good articles/books are a liberal education in themselves, and impress upon us the difference between the professional and the amateur.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ted Hoffman

I think you are copping out. You dont have to produce top-notch scholarly work from day one but you may need to produce high quality work and seek to improve over time. What is required is not that difficult by the way if it is indeed true that you are familiar with the scholarship.
You can still hold down a job in a different field, raise a family and still produce high quality (even if not scholarly) work if you are interested in the subject. Are you interested in contributing to the field? You cant just choose your style and publish as if there are no people interested in that subject and who have made contributions.
It takes some hard work and patience and there are good reasons why one should familiarize himself with the works of other scholars in any field before purporting to make a contribution - and that familiarity should be evident as one goes through your work. Even Doherty despite his amateur status has shown familiarity with the works of NT scholars and that has helped give his theory some respectability. There is simply no way around that.

We have examples like Nicholas Matzke who is in geography but churns out stuff on genetics and evolution like he is a professor in the field. Work that has been published in scientific journals. We have several examples of people from different fields who make valuable and respected contributions on other fields. And you can do it.

Malachi151

Well Ted, there are a few issues here.

First of all, I have no respect for Biblical scholarship on these issues in the first place.

While I have studied the literature in regard to each of these passages in terms of translation and linguistics, etc., I haven't bothered, and won't bother, to read the various apologetic attempts at explaining them.

The issue with Biblical studies is similar I feel to the issue of Mayan studies about 100 years ago.

You see, all of the important discoveries in Mayan studies came from people outside the field, largely from people who had no knowledge of the mainstream scholarship at all.

The reason for this is because the mainstream scholarship was dreadfully wrong and completely on the wrong track. The primary people to actually make headway in interpreting and understanding the Mayan language and cultural beliefs were the people who knew nothing about what the established figures in the field were saying.

The fundamental assumptions of the establish view in Mayan studies were absolutely wrong. Therefore, the people who made the most progress in actually understanding the Mayan language and culture were people who knew were not influenced by those assumptions.

Now, in this case, I do know the assumptions and am much more up to date on the mainstream views, but I basically do my best to ignore those views because from what I have seen from them and from my own understanding of the material from as close as I can get to the use of primary sources (all translations of course) the mainstream assumptions are completely and absolutely wrong.

This actually goes for just about everything that has been produced by everyone in this field on both sides, the "Jesus Myth" side and the "Historical Jesus" side. IN fact, I probably disagree more with the majority of "Jesus Myth" claims than I do with "Historical Jesus" claims. I think that by and large the "scholarship" within in the "Jesus Myth" camp is an absolute joke.

By far the most popular and widely held views in the "Jesus Myth" camp are the "pagan parallels" claims, i.e. Jesus is patterned on pagan mythology. This is total and absolute garbage, but it is nevertheless the most widely heard claim among "JMers".

Then we have the various "Christian conspiracy" claims (explaining passages such as the one by Tacitus or the TF as intentional Christian insertions) and the attempts at very late dating of the Gospels, trying to put them all in the 2nd century or later. This is all total rubbish on the JM side, and all the "mainstream" view on the JM side. As far as I can see, almost all of the JM field is just garbage and nonsense.

Nevertheless, I hold the JM view, but not for reasons commonly held by the JM "community", which I also basically have no respect for. I respect Doherty, Price, and Wells and think that they have made good contributions, but by and large the "community" hold a bunch of nonsensical views IMO.

At this point basically Richard Carrier is the only person who has been helpful to me and supportive of my work on this issue, and basically he and I share fundamentally the same views on this subject and are very close in our understanding of the materials. He obviously has the more respected credentials in this field and the appropriate linguistic background. I suspect that if he ever does write a book on this subject that some of the ideas I have discussed with him will make their way into the book, though that certainly isn't speculation that I can really make.

So, why am I not going to bother writing something that references and acknowledges various other explanations of this material by more mainstream and Christian scholars? Because I honestly don't care what they have to say about it and I have no respect for them.

I've put together a body of work that I believe is cohesive and coherent and stands on its own merits and that's good enough for me. I don't think that my conclusions will ever be accepted anyway, no matter how many other works I cite. I think I could write the most scholarly paper in the world on this subject and it would be thrown in the trash.

As far as I'm concerned I've basically solved the understanding of the Gospels. As far as I'm concerned my understanding of the Gospels revolutionizes the field, basically makes everything else obsolete, and essentially proves that there is no historical material in any of the Gospels. If what I am saying is true, it essentially proves that, at the very least, Christianity is total bunk and founded on nothing more than massive misunderstanding of an ancient fictional story. As far as I'm concerned I have proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Gospels are not historical, it is proven, the whole thing started with the allegorical story that was later called the Gospel of Mark, upon which all other historical concepts of Jesus are based. Essentially every scene in the Gospel of Mark is based on Jewish scritpures or the Pauline letters, and every scene in the other Gospels is based on either the Gospel of Mark or further extrapolations from Jewish scriptures.

I don't think for a minute that that view will ever be accepted or will ever be mainstream in NT scholarship. I think its been proven and will never be accepted, so I see no reason in wasting my time.

And, BTW, I sent copies of The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory to about a dozen potentially sympathetic people, such as Robert M. Price, Carrier, Joseph Hoffman, and even Bart Ehrman, but I never heard back from anyone on it. So, as far as I'm concerned my work is done here. It is what it is.

Vivisector

Hi and good morning, Malachi.

A few unsolicited comments here from someone who's in a line of work that has required me to publish quite a bit (getting close to 100 peer-reviewed journal articles) and do more oral presentations than I care to remember. It's a totally different field, no doubt about that, but there might be some parallels that are relevant. I'll leave it to you to decide whether that's the case.

Ted is right on many points - in fact, I can't find fault with any of them. The most important one, I think, is the point regarding references, bibliography, etc. In fact, I think this is a critical point. You simply must describe the state of the art, and fairly, and especially including points of view which are counter to your own. This has nothing to do with your level of respect for biblical scholarship. What it's about is the fact that you're proposing an idea that's new, in at least some respects (I couldn't say as to the degree), and that you think explains the data better than other ideas that are out there. If you don't lay out the competing ideas, explain how yours is similar to and different from them, and build the case for yours being superior, it's hard for me to see how the paper has a chance of being accepted. That's the way it is in my field, at least. It's almost like - no, I'd say it's almost exactly like - you're selling a product. The paper is your vehicle for establishing both the superiority and distinctiveness of your product relative to the competitors, and there are almost always competitors.

I hope you'll reconsider your position and give a little thought to repackaging your work. Descriptions of previous work, references, etc. are simply a part of the way scholarship is usually done, because of the cumulative nature of the body of work and the (usually) incremental nature of changes to prevailing viewpoints (again, at least in my field).

Cheers,

V.

Ted Hoffman

With due respect to you, thats the easy way out Malachi. You dont need to choose the easy way out because you have capacity and do not need a shortcut. Plus, you don't want to become an obscure writer out of touch with the rest of scholarship. Its not enough to publish a theory. It must merit attention and walk the walk others have walked. Do stuff that matters and make your mark. If we (who are not for mainstream ideas) are going to shake this cage, we have to be willing to do the work. It's not enough to rail and fulminate - you have to know what you are willing to give up in order to achieve your goals. If your work does not show signs that you have read other people's work why should busy people in academia like Price, Carrier and Ehrman, who know how theory building works, and who have assesed hundreds of works by students (and who themselves may be interested in seeing whether you have included their works in your references), bother to read your work?
Please tell us why your work is worth considering if you show no evidence of having considered other people's work? Why should they pay attention?

Now, lets clear some misunderstanding here. You dont "blow all the right cocks to please the 'experts' on this subject." You are doing it for the reader. You are doing it to allow the reader to evaluate your work against what others have written on the subject (your opinion on those other works notwithstanding). It's a matter of being transparent and being frank to admit that there are other works. Thats the mark of a critical and honest writer. And critical readers are interested in knowing (among others):

What do we (not just Malachi) already know about Mark? What are the other existing theories regarding Mark? Who are the significant research personalities in this area? What sources of information or data have been identified that might be useful to the interested reader? Is there consensus on the topic? What aspects have generated significant debate on the topic? What methods or problems were identified by others studying in the field and how might they impact your research?

What is the most productive methodology for your research based on the literature you have reviewed? What is the current status of research in this area? What are the characteristics of the key concepts or the main factors or variables in discussing Mark? What are the relationships between these key concepts, factors or variables? Where are the inconsistencies or other shortcomings in the knowledge and understanding of NT scholarship? What views need to be (further) tested and reviewed? What evidence is lacking, inconclusive, contradictory or too limited? Why study (further) the research problem? What contribution can the present study be expected to make? What research designs or methods seem unsatisfactory?

So, forget about the NT scholars for a while (and God knows I dont respect them very much either), think about your readers. You want your readers to feel you have educated them on the subject, not simply advertised or published your opinion. Because people are interested in the subject, not just in what Malachi has to say about it. It's about the subject, not you. Give the subject what it demands of you. Lend credibility to your thesis by contrasting it with other theories. Show us whether there are people who share your views on interpretation of certain passages (others may actually think you are 'stealing' their ideas if you are not the first to present them). I think I have said all I have to say on this. I have bothered because you have a rich background in other fields and have the right passion and objectivity required.

Vivisector makes good points, thanks.

PS: Who in the JM camp makes this argument? There are parallels by the way but the expressein "patterned" implies purposeful fictionalization to fit a certain motif akin to the "copy-cat saviour" strawman that JP Holding parades everywhere he goes. Robert Price and Doherty have dealt with those arguments/strawmen already.
I presume you know better than to waste time with Archaya S and Freke and Gandy.
Who has published a book arguing these points?
Write a paper rebutting JM positions and present it. I will be the first to put aside everything else to deal with your arguments.