Steven Avery

Curious. Are you saying that John gives a separate account, with no relation to the synoptics ?

OTOH, number of the major aspects of John, (the birth narrative, the Herod execution, "neither eating bread nor drinking wine", and more) seem to be in synoptics and not in John.

Perhaps John presupposes some familiarity with Matthew or Mark or Luke

John 3:24
For John was not yet cast into prison.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Ben C Smith

I think that John knew Mark, almost certainly Luke also, and quite possibly Matthew.

Ah, I misspoke. I intended only the account of John the baptist baptizing Jesus. I almost wrote that, but since John has no account of the actual baptism it would not have been entirely appropriate.

My point is that it is at least odd that John should narrate so many of the events surrounding the baptism (the preaching of John, for example, and the epiphany, and the conversation about Elijah) without actually narrating the baptism.

Have you read Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians? He uses this verse in the same way.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

So the baptismal account in Mark 1.2-11 is the Marcan way of revealing the messiah, with John the baptist acting as Elijah and Jesus himself not knowing until his epiphany?

That is a very attractive proposal. Thanks for the brain fodder.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Then your assault on embarrassment would seem misguided. Your real target should be the prior decision about genre.

Quick question: John 21.23 reports on a saying that circulated in the early church which the author himself feels he has to explain somehow. Would you agree that the fact that he feels compelled to explain is a good indicator that the circulation of the saying itself is historical (that is, that the author actually heard the rumor and did not make it up on the spot)?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Well, that is coming to a conclusion prior to applying the criterion. I never said it had to be a correct conclusion or even one that was well thought out.

So my question to you is this: How do you determine whether Mark intended to write history?

Is that why you seem to use only negative criteria?

Ben.

Amaleq13

No charge, just a mention in the footnotes.

ynquirer

A problem with Alan Segal’s opening post at Slate, comments thereupon having consumed a great deal of space in this thread, is that he lists three criteria and emphatically praises the third one – embarrassment – while the relevant one in the MJ/HJ debate rather seems to be the first one – context. Such imprecision serves Vorkosigan to content for literary analysis plus some unspecified “external evidence� in substitution for criteria of reliability. I disagree.

Literary analysis may evince what a writer means, yet it cannot provide evidence of the historic reliability of what is meant. For instance, even though Homer speaks of fig-trees in texts that could have been used, as a template, by the writer of Mark, the fact remains that some texts in the Septuagint roundly squares in the gospel as well if not better. It is quite possible that the gospeler copied Homer’s stories – much of the work in Greek language was done – for midrashic writing. That would additionally display a touch of enlightenment face-to-face the Gentiles – a new market for the Christian Hebrews. Some believe that copying Homer makes the writer of Mark qualify as a mere “novelist,� so that he may be ruled out as saying nothing of interest for historical purposes. Novels in the first century were not the same as novels in the nineteenth to twenty-first century, not even novels in first-century Greece were the same as novels in the first-century Judea. I am afraid it is not that easy.

If literary analysis is suggestive but insufficient, then – what? Criteria is still the answer. Embarrassment does not probe Jesus existed, but for the time being context disposes of the Greek Hero Tragedy. Certainly, there is no hard evidence in support of the HJ. But there is still less evidence in support of the MJ… exception to be made for a few literary analyses of some Pauline epistles and the gospel of Mark of the type mentioned above plus The Acts of Andrew.

Lacking “hard� evidence, what does support the HJ and MJ hypotheses? The HJ is supported by apologetic writings – scarcely any historic one in the very early Christianity – of Christian believers. This is embarrassing – let me use the word in this context – for Christian historians nowadays, since it implies that much of those writings must be discounted. How much? That is the issue tackled by Segal with the second and third criteria.

But there is a much stronger support for the HJ as a general framework for early Christian history, namely, context. The story of Jesus – miracles not to be listed in – fits in very well with the context of the late Second Temple Judaism. That renders plausible the historical figure. The drawback for non-Christians is that, from endorsing such plausibility, Christians are prone to escalate into miracles, which is unacceptable for non-Christians. So far so good.

Thus, the MJ is for non-Christians a very expedient shortcut. Can one believe that? Instead of those tiresome discussions about miracles, just erase Jesus from history. A pure desideratum, as it turns to be. A seeming strength of the theory proves self-delusive. “It is obvious that a man capable to work miracles as Jesus is said to have been cannot have been real,� says the optimistic mythicist. This is a fallacy. The MJ does not strive against Jesus the miracle-worker, but against Jesus a man whatsoever who happened to be styled the Messiah by his followers, regardless of his actual powers.

The main problem with the MJ is that it is at all odds with the Jewish context. Jesus as a Greek Hero needs, in the first place, unacceptable misinterpretation of Paul and, secondly, the assumption of a paganizing milieu in first-century Judea, which nobody seems to have detected so far. It is true that hellenization was exceedingly deep in neighboring Partia and Egypt, to the extend that even the Greek gods were extensively worshipped; but the scholars’ consensus as regard the Jews is that, beyond the use of the Greek language for communication purposes, they were a much closer society, much more resistant to religious infiltration than anyone else in their entourage.

As the Jewish society cannot be assume to be any paganizing, let alone for individuals to adhere to orphic-like rites as Paul’s religion is alleged to have been, then small groups – “communities� – of such paganizing Jews are assumed by the mythicists to have mushroomed throughout Judea and Galilea: a “Markan community� here, a “Q-community� there, a “Thomas’ community� over there, etcetera, about none of which there is the slightest historical record except hypothesis extrapolated from texts – isn’t there any circularity in this? In any event, too feeble a backing for the MJ since all such entities as the Markan, Q- and Thomas’ communities are wholly disposable – except for anti-apologetic purposes – by using Ockham’s razor.

Therefore, the HJ still holds the field by default, if you wish. But enough if enough.

(Edited to add The Acts of Andrew.)

Vorkosigan

Correct. It cannot demonstrate historicity but it can provide another strike against it. If you show that some event X is a convention of fiction, or a trope, or parallels another fiction, then you have provided strong evidence against historicity.

Which novels can you identify from first century Judea? Most of the mythicists put the gospels in the second century, and the Dutch radicals date it all to the second century. So this objection fails.

I don't think you quite understand. If there is no HJ, then Jesus is automatically MJ regardless of the positive evidence in support of the MJ idea itself. There are only two basic choices here -- you can't partly exist.

This analysis is all wrong. It is not miracles that cause mythicists to discount the HJ, as all scholars discount them except for conservatives. The HJ of course fits very well in the context of late second temple judaism, since almost anything from that time could, as late second temple judaism was heavily hellenized. Hence, anything hellenistic idea would work just fine.

No mythicist makes this argument.

Yes, you are right, it is a fallacy, which is why it is not made.

It fits perfectly within a Jewish context. You should check out Alan Segal's work, in fact. It arose out of the "two powers in heaven" ideas that grew in late second temple Judaism.

It is pretty clear that you are all confused here. Your assumption is (1) that the gospels emerged from a Judaean milieu and (2) Judaism was not Hellenism. Both of those assumptions are wrong. Diaspora Judaism was hellenized Judaism. The diaspora was where the Gospels were written.

.
Things are more complex than Hellenized/not Hellenized.

This idea of "communities" is only Earl Doherty's idea. No other mythicist espouses it. This problem is the result of Doherty's wish to keep the history made by NT scholars but dispose of the HJ. Obviously there is no "community" behind Mark or Thomas, and there is no Q. This objection is not to the MJ, but to a particular manifestation of it.

Vorkosigan

hallq

No Q? How do you account for Matthew-Luke similarities not found in Mark? Did Luke use Matthew? If so, why contradict Matthew with regards to the birth stories?

Vorkosigan

Yes, Luke used Matthew.

Why does anyone contradict anyone? Why did the movie Wizard of Oz contradict the book? Different goals, agendas, purposes.........

In any case, one line in the birth narratives is the same in both gospels, a five word agreement, as I recall. And of course, Luke actually has a birth narrative, unlike most of the other narratives about Jesus. Why?

Michael