spin

Why do you only assume one possible relationship between the sources? You arbitrarily decide that otherwise one must mention the other? Did Mt mention Mk? This is really a really specious argument, TedM.

Still massively assumption laden. Not good.

Using historical methodology.

If the historical methodology that you use doesn't yield any historical content then perhaps that's indicative of something you should face.

Did Judith exist? Did Tobit exist? Did Ebion exist?

Your persistence in some modern notion of "entire fiction" merely says that your modern prerequisites were not dealt with in ancient times. I could have told you that earlier: don't project your desires onto the past.

Perhaps if you can tell what you consider is not fiction and why exactly the particular datum is historical, one might be able to deal with something substantive rather than you attempting to shift responsibility onto the non-substantive position.

But you still haven't said what the relationship with Paul was.

What is your external source for this influence? Or are you just cherry picking?

GJn clearly says that Jesus didn't baptise, which undermines any relationship with John.

Embarrassment is an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with history at all.

Wot?

??

"[L]ack"!

I'm getting lost in the flow of non sequiturs.

It was a central peg of Paul's teaching, so if he is representative of the earliest thought on the subject it would only make sense that it was accepted early on.

I think you could make a similarly strong case for the historical nature of the Satyricon.


spin

TedM

Why should I assume there is a relationship? How, is this any different than two works that are accepted as historically corroberative? Mt contains 90% of Mark, Mark contains a very small pctg of Paul, so I don't see the Mt-Mk argument as a very good example.


Very reasonable assumptions, so why not good?


It seems to me that doing so (however that is done) can only be used to find historical inaccuracies, and that there are remaining parts that aren't disproven. Such as Jesus was a real person, or Jesus met JTB. If Jesus didn't really heal a blind man it doesn't mean he wasn't considered a healer. If God didn't really say anything during the baptism, that doesn't mean he wasn't baptized. The historical methodology can only go so far. It can't be used to prove anything beyond.

I'm not trying to prove anything, so there is no responsibility on my side. Those that claim that the entire work is fiction even though they can only demonstrate that part of it is are going too far.


Why do I need an external source to tell me that JTB baptism influenced early Christianity? I'm not trying to prove that. I'm saying that the second is supportive of the first.


I didn't claim Jesus had a relationship with John. I said that the account of his own disciples initially baptizing is supportive of an early JTB influence on Jesus. Why? Because they were imitating JTB's disciples early on--NOT baptizing in Jesus' name as they did later. It seems that the movement didn't yet have their own philosophy.

If an author writes about something which can really be shown to be embarrassing to him, this betrays a historical event. We can't show that because we can't prove the author's intent. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was embarrasing. The counter arguments seem stretched to me.


Since Paul mentioned him (as well as other brothers), and the most reasonable interpretation is that of biological brothers. The 'special group' interpretation is more problematic, and comes across as wishful thinking by Jesus-mythers.

It makes more sense to me that a fictional writing would not have so many brothers and friends as disciples of Jesus, because it spreads the support between a smaller group of differing backgrounds.


Yes, because it makes more sense to me that a fictional writing would have the miracles be openly witnessed in the public places Mark mentions. Yet, many if not most are only witnessed by a few chosen disciples or no one else at all.


Presenting the Messiah as a person who lived recently in history doesn't make sense to me if Mark didn't believe that person actually lived. I don't think a person would go to all that trouble for other reasons without making it clear that he didn't really believe what he was writing. And, if he DID believe he had lived, I don't think he would have gotten away with the timeframe had he not. To my knowledge we don't have any similar example throughout all of history of a mythical person considered to be divine or near-so being placed in such detailed historical settings so few years prior to the writing.

I can't comment since I don't know anything about that.

You may want to limit your response as I don't intend on writing much more about this. Other things are more important to me these days.. Thanks,

spin

You tell me. You already assume a relationship for some reason. You are claiming that they are siblings or some other non-linear relationship.

You tried to argue that Paul and Mk were separate witness, by saying "Paul doesn't mention Mark and Mark doesn't mention Paul" to which I responded that they doesn't indicate anything for Mt doesn't mention Mk, but we know that Mt was dependent on Mk. You then tried to claim that these situations weren't analogous for some reason without communicating your idea:
The point was you were trying to argue that because there is no acknowledgment of a connection there was no linear connection. You would say Mt doesn't acknowledge a connection with Mk so there's no connection, right?

Historical methodologies can, depending on the evidence,

1. say something happened or someone existed,
2. say something may have happened or someone may have existed, or
3. say that something didn't happen or someone didn't exist.

The first option is useful and so is the third, though it is more difficult.

If you can't show that a figure existed, then you can't really do much with that figure in history, can you? There may be some dispute over the existence of John, but I think the independent witness of Josephus for him in circumstances which don't accord too easily with the gospel information helps me say he existed. We can't do the same for Jesus. You have no way of showing that Jesus was a real person, so your further interest in the figure of Jesus isn't a matter of history.

This notion of supportive is meaningless, it seems to me. Plausibility is not a sufficient condition in historical research. You seem to be doing literary criticism rather than showing any interest in history. You can apply lit. crit. to any novel or play and get similar results, can't you? If a text is plausible (here, read "supportive") according to your criteria, what does it mean, other than that it is plausible (supportive)?

That John had an influence on Jesus is at the moment a literary observation. Your idea that the Jesus "movement didn't yet have their own philosophy" is you giving coherence to the narrative. This could be called eisegesis.

Arguments that fall back on the silly embarrassment fudge can't get anywhere, because they aren't trying to do history, but appeal to a modern person's understanding of coherence. If a modern person did X, they would be embarrassed, well that tells me something about a modern person, little else.

That's merely interpretation. What does "the lord's brother" mean? What does Ahijah mean? Perhaps the 500 brethren are also brothers of Jesus or something. But of course this logic is just more of the same narrative plausibility, which has nothing to do with history. There is no way you can claim to know the exact reference of obscure phrases in an ancient document, without having sufficient contextualization, so I don't think you can say what the "most reasonable interpretation" is.

I can't see how you can take this "supportive" argument of yours seriously. It says nothing at all other than you find it plausible. This inspires a rousing "uh-huh", and nothing more.

But that tells you nothing about reality, perhaps only what the writer of Mk believed, if that. Besides, you've presented nothing to make one think that Mk was written about something in the recent past, given that you don't k now when Mk was written.

If Mark's "King" Herod was a confusion over Herod the Great, a possibility that you can't simply discount, then you open a big can of worms.

I don't know when the Jesus tradition was started or in what form or about whom -- we just the literature. I should then point you to the existence or non-existence of Ebion, a person invented sometime before Tertullian, and who had developed various characteristics at the time of Tertullian but got more by the time of Epiphanius. He was supposed to have been the eponymous founder of the Ebionites. How do you separate the process that produced Ebion from the process which supplied Jesus?


spin

Malachi151

TedM

I'm not saying that there is a relationship between Paul and Mark or not, but Mark is a story of the life of Jesus, none of Paul's writings are such, they are letters to people about various ideas, thus they are two completely different things, whereas Mk, and Mt are both stories about the life of Jesus.

Also, just because Matthew copies from Mark doesn't mean that Mark had to have copied from Paul in order to have been influenced by Paul.

Can we conclude that Mark never read the works of Paul or heard of the teachings of Paul, and was thus never influenced by Paul?

No, we can't.

Can we say for sure that he had read Paul and was influence by him?

No, we can't.

JoeWallack

JW:
I find your sense of what constitutes common sense regarding "Mark" reMarkable. Perhaps most Amazing is that you can claim any point that has "more sense to me" and "miracles" in the same thought.

Let's suppose, just for the Sake of Argumeddon, that the Impossible is Possible. You have correctly observed that per "Mark" the Lesser the Miracle by Jesus the More and more Outside the Witness. The Greater the supposed Miracle by Jesus the Less and more Inside the Witness until the greatest Miracle of all, the Resurrection, is observed by No one. Is this common sense Ted, that in "Mark's" Gospel, the Insiders who knew Jesus and received the best evidence wouldn't Believe and the Outsiders who didn't know Jesus and received the Worst evidence would Believe? The Early Editor of "Mark" didn't think so so he Forged an Ending showing the Insiders as Believing. The Later Editors of "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke", didn't believe so either and likewise Forged a similiar ending as well as rehabilitating the Insiders within the Narrative.

You have the Selective observation so far that Paul and "Mark" appear to agree on some things Jesus. What you have not properly considered is what was the likely Source of knowledge for them? Having Paul and "Mark" agree on something doesn't really tell us if their underlieing Source was Historical or Fictional. Understand Dear Reader?

As it happens here, Paul and "Mark" do agree on their Source but this agreement is Negatively defined, What their Source was not. "Mark" presents a Narrative showing The Disciples as not understanding Jesus and ultimately dropping out and not Witnessing Jesus. "Mark's" Implication is that the people who knew and witnessed Jesus, The Disciples, were not the Source of "Mark's" Narrative. Similarly, the Implication from Paul's writings is that his Source was not anyone who knew and Witnessed Jesus. Therefore, common sense tells us that Paul and "Mark" had a common Source for their Jesus, their Imaginations. This dovetails nicely with a Narrative that consists primarily of the Impossible. Remove the Impossible from "Mark" and you have the classic Episode of The Adam Family where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there's nothing left.

The Story of Jesus is like a JewSaw puzzle where we are missing all the middle peaces and only have the Borders of Impossible claims. If we assume that the Impossible is Impossible than I get the following scenario:

1) The Historical Jesus was a Possible Teacher and faith Healer.

2) The Historical witnesses, Peter and James, witnessed Possible Teaching and faith Healing and Evidenced this with Q.

3) Paul, who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.

4) "Mark", who didn't know Jesus, Rejected the Possible evidence provided by those who did, and Witnessed an Impossible Jesus based on his Imagination.



Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Malachi151

This also requires some understanding of the stories and religions of the time, as well as the motivation of Mark.

I would ask this of Ted.

Read Mark from beginning to end with this in mind: Consider that Mark was written after the destruction of Judea by the Roman army by a Jew living in Rome who, while being a Jew, thinks that the Jews in Judea are backwards and foolish and that they should get with the program and integrate with the Roman Empire and stop trying to be separate.

Come back and give us your impression.

Also, keep in mind that "secret knowledge" was a major theme in the religions of the Roman Empire during this time, many stories feature secretly revealed knowledge in them.

In fact, this is what "Mark" is doing.

The story written by Mark basically says this:

Judea has been destroyed and I am sorry to say but my Jewish people brought it on themselves.

The Judean Jews are ignorant fools. The destruction of Judea happened because they were fools and didn't heed the word of integration. Everything was revealed to them right before their eyes, but they still couldn't figure it out, they are the victims of their own ignorance.

Until now, no one has really understood the message of God, which is why *I* (the writer of the gospel of Mark) am revealing the truth to you now.

See the message of Jesus, see how clear it is? But look, none of the disciples of Jesus could figure it out, they were all too foolish. None of his disciples, not even Peter, that fool, understood the message of Jesus, which is why Judea has been destroyed, and why we must now abandon Judaism and the old ways for a new way of life.

----

That's my summary of what the author of Mark is saying, and as such it is impossible that any theoretical disciple could be a source for Mark, since Mark portrays all the disciples and all of the witnesses to Jesus as fools. According to Mark NO ONE that saw Jesus (except the Roman officer) really understood Jesus.

I would also venture to say that Mark was writing allegory here and didn't even have a pretense of writing history, he was using "Jesus" as a literary aid, to get his own personal message across. The message of Jesus in the gospel of Mark is the PERSONAL VIEW OF THE AUTHOR.

As I said, read Mark with this in mind and see what you think....

Amaleq13

Are you assuming here that JtB was the only one baptizing?

Given that embarrassment can truly be shown, it really only indicates it is something the author felt constrained to include in his story. That it was well known as an historical fact is only one possible reason for that feeling of constraint but it requires additional evidence/argument to be established as the reason.

What specific evidence of the author's embarrassment do you see? I see none. In fact, it seems to me that the author is embracing the notion that Jesus was doubted by his family and using it to further his veneration of Jesus.

TedM

Had I said "alleged miracles" my point would have been clearer.

This seems reasonable, though my point above about the alleged miracles is that the witnessed vs unwitnessed 'miracles' argues in favor IMO of the existence of some events that were publically witnessed and believed to have been miracles---the "Possible evidence" Mark didn't invent using his imagination. I put the things in common between Mark and Paul's Jesus in the same category.

Thanks to all of those who responded here..Lots of good comments have been made and things I would like to think about and study further..Someday perhaps. . For now I am going to have to bow out in order to keep my priorities in line.

ted

TedM

He may not have been, but he is the only other person I know of who was doing it. It appears that he was quite popular with the people also. This only increases the odds that a person of religious bent such as Jesus would have been influenced by him.


I agree. I suspect that historical truth is the most common reason for writing about an event as though it were history, that one feels constrained to include.

Good point. I am projecting under the assumption that Mark was a believer and that a believer would be embarrassed by that--thus would provide the 'reason' for such doubts that Mark did--prophet not honored in his own country/town.. IF Mark was a believer, I don't see how he could not find the rejection of his Savior by Jesus' own family as disturbing. It feeds into a persons natural doubts..

Ok, now I really am done. Malachi--interesting suggestion. Spin--not sure I really see the value of the historical methodology for things that it simply can't be applied to...It ultimately includes assumptions and subjectivity just as does my less-scientific arguments...Sorry. But thanks..

ted

spin

Yes, history lets you talk meaningfully about the past. The rest is hype, but lots of people are into it.


spin