Vorkosigan

I don't think TedM's religion is relevant to anything that goes on in this forum.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

"Novel and history" can be seen as a spectrum is quite different from "ancient Jewish writings were not written as fiction." It's the same with the Greek novels, which make extensive use of history.

But "ancient Jewish writings" covers a very broad set of documents. I doubt the author of Joseph and Asenath thought of his work as history, though he certainly utilized history in its service. Perhaps that's what Hill meant. I

Is my methodology exclusively comparative?

Vorkosigan

That's a good point and one I have often pondered as I have read parallels that others have uncovered. Why this passage and not that one. It's easy to see why he used the Elijah stories, given Elijah's status. But why incorporate other material from Kings? I have no answer for that. But luckily it is not my job to explain why....only how.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I would have to go with (b) on that one.

TedM

If the answer to why Mark portray's Jesus as strong but not omnipotent is because that's how Mark consistently portrayed him, is that really an answer? Are you not willing to address the question of what kind of portrayal would we expect of a Messiah on earth who is inspired by the OT and Paul's writings? Would those sources support a Messiah who occasionally fails?

Would Mark really need to clarify that for his readers? They already thought he was the Lord, so why remind them that he wasn't 'just' David's son? It seems to me that Tolbert's interpretation makes more sense if you assume Mark was writing of a HJ.


Yet, Peter is the most prominently mentioned disciple in the stories, declares that Jesus is the Christ, and is singled out to await his appearance after the crucifixion in Galilee. And, we see mention or prophecy of a future Paul. I've not delved into it, but for not being a Petrine Gospel Gospel and for depending on Paul, it seems odd that the emphasis on personalities is the opposite.

ted

freigeister

Hill makes no claim that there were any purely imaginative works in ancient Jewish literature.

In fact, there were none. All ancient Jewish literature was written by, as Constantin Brunner says, "writers of Truth who strive solely to uncover the essence." I suggest you read Brunner's full discussion of literature, particularly his comparison of ancient literature with that of our day. It is available here (use keyword phrase "conception of literature" to get to the start of the relevant section).

andrewcriddle

My general problem with regarding Mark as radically non-historical in intention ie not only as unhistorical in fact but making no claims to be historical is this.

The idea that Mark is fictional in this sense seems to involve one of the following.

a/ That Mark is not meant to be taken entirely seriously in the way that some of the late apocryphal Acts are IMO not meant to be taken entirely seriously.

This seems unlikely and I don't think that Vorkosigan is suggesting this.

b/ That Mark's account of Jesus is to be taken very seriously but not at all literally eg as a parable or symbolic account in the way that 'Cupid and Psyche' by Lucius is IMO meant to be taken.

This seems IMO unlikely in any case and extremely unlikely if Mark is seen as a development of Paul's thought. Even if Paul's idea of Jesus is regarded with Doherty as mythical, ( ie as not in our space and time), Paul's Jesus is certainly not a basically symbolic or parabolic figure.

c/ That Mark's gospel is in a code which people with the right key can interpret correctly. This would be similar to Heracleon's interpretation of John in which various figures in John's gospel represent various figures in the Spiritual realm. (The idea that the gospels are really about Titus's war against the Jews might be another example of this type of idea.)

IMO this is also unlikely, although IMHO it may be the least unlikely of the three options.

This seems as far as I can see to exhaust the options for Mark as fictional in intention, and none of them IMO seem very plausible.

Andrew Criddle

freigeister

You said "Knowledge of the document itself is concerned with knowledge of related and concurrent documents." This is comparison. you have specified no other means of gaining knowledge of documents.

andrewcriddle

In principle IMHO a narrative could be so heavily based on OT parallels to make any plausible extraction of an earlier account without the allusions impracticable.

This would IMHO be good evidence against historicity or at least any identifiable historical core.

Meier argues in Volume 2 of 'A Marginal Jew' that Jesus walking on the water in Mark 6:45-52 and parallels is so very heavily loaded with OT references as to make any historical core unlikely.

However IMHO the OT parallels have to be very strong indeed to imply non-historicity in this way.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

So he supports your assertion by silence?

Is this assertion based on anything other than your personal preference?

First, I don't consider this inconsistent with the creation of a story with no other source than the author's mind. I think it is entirely possible that an ancient Jew or Christian could create such a story from faith and firmly believe it was "True". Second, I read enough in your Brunner thread to conclude that I can not consider him a reliable source of scholarly opinion if only because his conclusions are, according to you, based on "assuming the basic truthfulness of the gospels". I consider that an example of circular reasoning and, therefore, an unreliable way to examine the texts. If I ever become interested in philosophical speculation, however, I'll keep him in mind.