Vorkosigan

Sure -- ONLY THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK SO.

Vinnie, the lack of clear thinking you display here is quite astounding. It is also sad to see that since you are unable to respond effectively you have fallen into insult. If, as you say, there is no method to determine what has a historical core and what doesn't -- THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR MY SIDE! That's a problem for your side. I don't need to show that there is not a historical core (how would that be possible with the information we have? All we can do is show that the story is highly improbable and a complete literary creation). A historical core is unnecessary for the story as it stands. The burden is on those who want to show there is a kernel there despite the evidence.

Mark and John are not independent. So no case here. As we know, the other half of scholarship believes them to be dependent. As your hero Crossan himself points out, they share literary features -- which you note below.

They are all dependent, Vinnie. On Mark in fact.

Yes. And this makes it history how?

No triple attestation, no independence at all. A literary fiction in Mark that appears in John is a fiction there as well. That's basic lit crit. Structural similarities are indications of literary dependence, Vinnie. That's why Crossan uses the Markan intercalations preserved in John to show Johannine dependence on Mark. The argument is unassailable. But since the conservative wing of NT scholars needs an independent John....it is not accepted by about half of scholars.

Vinnie, I frankly doubt you really understand what is going here, if you can come out with a comment as silly as this one.

At least I understand the whole idea of criteria and how they work, as apparently you do not. And you will note that I have not offered a criteria for historicity. I have simply asked why we should regard as historical a story which can be explained on every level as a piece of of literary dependence (which is also highly improbable, but that is not so important).

I was responding to your utterly foul logic with that remark about the IPU.

It's really not surprising that three dependent sources should share 3 structural similarities (more like inevitable). All you've really done by insisting on the structural similarities is made (another) argument for literary dependence. Congrats!

I sympathize; revisiting the impotence of NT historical methodology is probably painful for you, especially when you consider the amount of time you have invested in studying a methodology that doesn't work.

"Non-historicity" is not an issue here. It cannot be demonstrated -- I'm sort of surprised that the logic of that hasn't occurred to you, Vinnie. All you can show is that the story is obviously a fiction built out of the OT, and highly improbable on its face. To that end I have supplied a mountain of evidence. No similar evidence exists on the other side.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

This isn't true either. What it can't be is proven, in the strict sense. But then, few things can. It can--in my opinion, it has--be demonstrated that the story is a creation of the evangelist: The classic trifecta of means, motive, and opportunity. The latter is rather axiomatic--of course Mark had opportunity. Means were established early on, but as I've noted, they don't hold much weight on their own, as the same means can be used toward much different ends. Motive is the real key, and I'm persuaded that this has been established. I am persuaded as such by the same subjectivity you are, despite your earlier criticisms of subjective method.

There is no such thing as an objective means of establishing why someone wrote what they did, unless they tell us explicitly why they did so. Even then there's room for doubt. When we wonder why someone did something, unless they have told us explicitly, what we are left with is a subjective assessment. This is inevitable. It's as subjective from your end as it is from Vinnie's, or mine, or anyone else's. It didn't stop being subjective when I agreed with you.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Well, it is subjective. I have no qualms with admitting that; anything that works with literary approaches is inevitably so. The only thing you can do is (1) explain things so the other side has the same epiphany you do, which is tough; or (2) pile up so much evidence that it is unreasonable to withhold assent.

Vorkosigan

Rick Sumner

Are these truly distinct?

What if there isn't enough evidence to pile up?

How do you establish subjective evidence without a "methodology," which you've already condemned (and I agree wholeheartedly, I've yet to see a criteria that isn't reversible, for either side)?

Really, what are we left with save explanatory power? And given that that's really all we have, what is necessarily wrong with that? How is that different from other fields of ancient history? Do they have methodologies? What are they?

The real crux of the matter is implied by Vinnie: The lack of methodology--the very subjective nature of this entire field of inquiry--is a double-edged sword. You routinely condemn the historicist for their "lack of an objective methodology," and therein lay the problem, because you don't have one either. You can't, it's quite impossible for either side to come up with one, as you've just observed.

There is no truly objective way to establish historicity--no truly sound argument can ever be tendered on the matter. But the converse is at least equally true, and therein lay the rub.

As I noted on another thread, all we have is explanatory power.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vinnie

I won't comment on John and Mark but Thomas is independent of Mark. You think otherwise and are hereby FORMALLY challenged to demonstrate this with me in the Debate Forum here.

Thomas is independent of Mark and shares a similar saying. Mark may have patterned it off the OT scene but it clearly has an older core that he used. I make no judgement as to the historicity of this "older core". The scene as it stands in Mark is overall, Marcan creation and fiction.

My whole comments are that a core of this predates Mark. I stop there neither affirming or denying this cores historicity.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Au contraire! I have a methodology

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

And I understand that you've worked very hard on it, and am sure that at points it can extract historically likely conclusions. But can it do it consistently? The subjective nature of some your criteria demands a conclusion in the negative.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Isn't he explicitly described as deliberately fulfilling Scripture when he arranges for his ride into Jerusalem? (Mk 19:29-31)

How realistic it is would depend on how strong we assume Jesus' belief in himself/his mission was. When we've got people today willing to have themselves literally crucified to demonstrate their faith, I'm not sure what constitutes "unrealistic".

Rick Sumner

deleted

the_cave

What would count as an early source, and do you feel this would make a difference in your opinion? I would say it may be in the Passion Narrative (I guess I should mention that I think there was a Passion Narrative), and that's as early as things can get!

You know, reading the article over again carefully, I must say once again I am underwhelmed by an OT/Gospel comparison. Here are some quotations from the article:
"At other points, the actions of Nehemiah and Jesus appear to diverge....There is no clear evidence that ‘buying and selling’ was as significant for Nehemiah as it seems to have been in the gospel narratives...."
In general, I would say the article strains to find equivalence between a number of elements--for example, the literal "foreignness" in Nehemiah and some sort of figurative (yet in fact unmetioned!) "foreignness" in the Gospel passage. As another example, the author claims that "the most vivid similarity between the actions of Jesus and Nehemiah is the overturning of the tables"--yet overturned tables are nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Nehemiah passage! There is also the difference between a chamber inside the temple, and the courts outside the temple. The business about the vessels is intriguing, I admit, though perhaps not conclusive.

Because I assume that Mark was written towards the end of the first century. If you want to argue for the beginning of the second, I won't fuss. The point is, the reception by the original audience is presumably important. I also assume it was written somewhere in the Levant. But I could be wrong. I'm unaware of resources that discuss alternate locales for its composition.