Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-29-2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Arbitrary differences such as Ebion not having been a messianic figure won't really help separate Ebion from Jesus. That will merely be you projecting your opinions onto the past.

I think that difference is highly significant because of the expectations that existed about the Messiah prior to the claim that Jesus was that Messiah. Unless there were similar expectations for Ebion your comparison is fatally flawed.

Quote:

There is nothing strictly fictional about the story told by mark, --because if there were, wouldn't he know? Yet that's the issue, the writer's ability to separate tradition based on real report and that which is not.

No, I don't think the issue is whether the author knew or not. The issue is whether WE can know or not.

Quote:

Note the a priori commitment. He would have written in a certain manner. You know this not because he indicated it, but because you know what to expect from fiction. It is your expectations regarding fiction that you are writing about, not Mark's.

Exactly, but not just any fiction. Fiction related to a story about the Messiah. This is a special case because of the prior expectations. Those MIGHT give us some ability to have more insight than we would have about writings such as Tertullian's on Ebion.

Did you see my 8 point example? How would you answer my question on that?

aa5874 · 06-29-2010, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

ok, back to the points in the OP:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ted

Or another plot device.

This is true. It could be. But what plot device would that be? To emphasize that he must be a prophet because his own town didn't believe in him? If so Mark didn't say on what basis Jesus made that claim. To emphasize the need for faith in order to experience a miracle (as he did at other times)? If so Mark missed the opportunity. All he said is that "Jesus wondered at their disbelief".

The clear implication is that Jesus tried to perform one or more miracles, only to be unable to do so, and yet Mark made little effort to make a strong point in response. Seems like quite an odd Messiah Mark is creating here. How can the Son of God fail to perform a miracle? Wouldn't it have been better to just not even mention it? So, why didn't he? Is the best explanation perhaps that there must have been some widely known truth to the story.

Interestingly had Mark written what Luke wrote, I would probably conclude that it is a very clever plot device (Luke 4:25-27):

Quote:

25"But I say to you in truth, there were many widows in Israel (AA)in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land;

26and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but (AB)only to Zarephath, in the land of (AC)Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.

27"And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but (AD)only Naaman the Syrian."

This is because Mark seems to want to present JTB as Elijah returned, and Jesus could be compared to Elisha, who followed Elijah and also performed many miracles. Why didn't Mark put similar words into Jesus' mouth as what Luke has? Was he relying on his readers to be familiar enough with the Elijah and Elisha stories to see the similarities? Was he hiding his source, like he may have done with the fish and bread miracle story--likely from the Elisha story too? Then there is the question of why Luke wrote it in..but that's another issue.

The plot device idea becomes plausible when you add in the Elijah/Elisha comparison. I think I've learned something unexpected on this one.

I may have to revisit Vork's sight on Mark. Anyone have a link for that?

I am trying to follow but all you do is ask questions that you yourself seem unable to answer yet you continue to make assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

1.... But what plot device would that be?

2. .... To emphasize that he must be a prophet because his own town didn't believe in him?

3.....If so Mark didn't say on what basis Jesus made that claim. To emphasize the need for faith in order to experience a miracle (as he did at other times)?

4.....How can the Son of God fail to perform a miracle?

5.....Wouldn't it have been better to just not even mention it?

6.....So, why didn't he?

7.....Is the best explanation perhaps that there must have been some widely known truth to the story.

8...Why didn't Mark put similar words into Jesus' mouth as what Luke has?

9....Was he relying on his readers to be familiar enough with the Elijah and Elisha stories to see the similarities?

10...... Was he hiding his source, like he may have done with the fish and bread miracle story--likely from the Elisha story too?

11....Then there is the question of why Luke wrote it in..but that's another issue.

You will notice that there is no LIMIT to speculation. No matter can be resolved by speculation after speculation.

As I have pointed out it make very little sense to speculate that gMark's was LIMITED to his supposed human characteristics when there are clear indications that he also depicted Jesus as having mythological characteristics.

Jesus was WITNESSED by the disciples walking on water in gMark.

spin · 06-29-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Arbitrary differences such as Ebion not having been a messianic figure won't really help separate Ebion from Jesus. That will merely be you projecting your opinions onto the past.

I think that difference is highly significant because of the expectations that existed about the Messiah prior to the claim that Jesus was that Messiah. Unless there were similar expectations for Ebion your comparison is fatally flawed.

So you think that if Jesus were fictional and belonged to a nascent tradition of him being messianic, one would have to be able to tell that he were fictional. That's just as I said, a priori. In short you have no justification for this assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

No, I don't think the issue is whether the author knew or not. The issue is whether WE can know or not.

That is your epistemological problem. We are lucky with Ebion that we know that the name "Ebionite" wasn't from an eponymous source. Deal with your epistemological commitment. Don't just repeat your assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Note the a priori commitment. He would have written in a certain manner. You know this not because he indicated it, but because you know what to expect from fiction. It is your expectations regarding fiction that you are writing about, not Mark's.

Exactly, but not just any fiction. Fiction related to a story about the Messiah. This is a special case because of the prior expectations.

As you believe. You need to establish the prior expectations, not just pull them out of your desire. Good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Those MIGHT give us some ability to have more insight than we would have about writings such as Tertullian's on Ebion.

As I said, a priori.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Did you see my 8 point example? How would you answer my question on that?

You're just cooking the books with an oversimplification. Add to the issue the starting material from Paul for example, whose works precede the gospel, that the messiah died, crucified before your #8.

#7b. He would die ignominiously.

Oh and add somewhere that lots wouldn't appreciate him, as to the gentiles Paul's messianic notion was folly according to Paul. Etc.

Ebion was given personalizing information, a hometown and country. He was given books. He was given an itinerary and a heretical heritage. Your haste to overlook Ebion doesn't help your cause. Why shouldn't various touches you find realistic be added to the Jesus story as they were to the Ebion story?

You need to accommodate more background information that colors the story which you inadvertently omit.

You transparently start with your conclusion and manipulate the data, sometimes consciously, sometimes not.

spin

Toto · 06-30-2010, 01:20 AM

Michael Turton (Vork) on Mark

TedM · 06-30-2010, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Michael Turton (Vork) on Mark

Thanks Toto. It's a great resource. I just emailed him about adding in the Elijah/Elisha connection with ref. to this story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're just cooking the books with an oversimplification. Add to the issue the starting material from Paul for example, whose works precede the gospel, that the messiah died, crucified before your #8.

#7b. He would die ignominiously.

My example is simple in order to make the point clearer. It may be that the Messiah expectations at the time were too all over the map for us to have any reasonable expectations.

I would like to find a good article/book that talks about what the Messiah expectations were just prior to Christianity arising. Can you or someone else recommend any for me? Thanks

JoeWallack · 06-30-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

In all, it seems to me one would have to conclude that Mark was quite clever in some ways and very deficient in other ways and with some strange references if he knowingly made up a story about a fictional Jesus. Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?
Comments?

JW:
Yes. Might not a reasonable explanation be that "Mark" thought Jesus was historical but created the original Jesus narrative? Might not a reasonable explanation be that "Mark" thought Jesus was historical but its possible he was not? Might not a reasonable explanation be that "Mark" used the plot of Greek Tragedy to write the original Jesus narrative and since the basics of the myth were already known to the audience it did not matter whether Jesus was historical or not?

As that great 20th century philosopher Bill Murray said in the classic Stripes, "Something is very wrong here." But our fellow Skeptics have so far been unable to articulate it. The problem is you, as is HJ, is trying to exorcise the issue of Source from the discussion. You can not deny/ignore the issue of source. As that great 21st century philosopher, spinowsyah sezs, "That is very naughty". Just because source is your problem you can not solve the problem by having an assumption that source can be ignored/denied. Your conclusions won't mean much. Now you can have a Thread here at FRDB with the ground rule that source can not be discussed. Is that what you want? Just say the Word and Toto will make it so.

Your supposed point of your examples in the OP is likewise as odd as HJ makes it. You claim that the oddity of the examples individually supports and cumulatively proves HJ? That's odd. You ask the question is "Mark" being very clever. I think he is and I can explain why for all. The question is, do you want me to?

Joseph

Wrestling With Greco Tragedy. Reversal From Behind. Is "Mark" Greek Tragedy?

TedM · 06-30-2010, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

You claim that the oddity of the examples individually supports and cumulatively proves HJ? That's odd.

No, not at all. More interested in understanding what other explanations are for them. Toto did a good job of addressing them.

Quote:

You ask the question is "Mark" being very clever. I think he is and I can explain why for all. The question is, do you want me to?

Sure, if they add more understanding--you may want to check toto's responses first. thanks, ted

spin · 06-30-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're just cooking the books with an oversimplification. Add to the issue the starting material from Paul for example, whose works precede the gospel, that the messiah died, crucified before your #8.

#7b. He would die ignominiously.

My example is simple in order to make the point clearer.

Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

It may be that the Messiah expectations at the time were too all over the map for us to have any reasonable expectations.

Wouldn't it be good for you to at least know what you can about the Messiah expectations at the time, rather than retrojecting your ideas on the subject?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I would like to find a good article/book that talks about what the Messiah expectations were just prior to Christianity arising. Can you or someone else recommend any for me? Thanks

* J.J. Collins wrote The Scepter and the Star (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Anchor 1995) which deals specifically with the subject of messianism. It has a strong emphasis on the Hebrew bible and the DSS, but looks at a few other sources as well.

* J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the DSS (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Routledge 1997). Chapter 5, "Messianic Expectation".

* Evans & Flint (eds), Eschatology, Messianism, and the DSS (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Brill 1997).

There will be more recent scholarly studies, but these, especially Collins, will give you some idea -- them and Paul's savior messiah combination.

spin

TedM · 06-30-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My example is simple in order to make the point clearer.

Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Wouldn't it be good for you to at least know what you can about the Messiah expectations at the time, rather than retrojecting your ideas on the subject?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I would like to find a good article/book that talks about what the Messiah expectations were just prior to Christianity arising. Can you or someone else recommend any for me? Thanks

* J.J. Collins wrote The Scepter and the Star (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Anchor 1995) which deals specifically with the subject of messianism. It has a strong emphasis on the Hebrew bible and the DSS, but looks at a few other sources as well.

* J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the DSS (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Routledge 1997). Chapter 5, "Messianic Expectation".

* Evans & Flint (eds), Eschatology, Messianism, and the DSS (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Brill 1997).

There will be more recent scholarly studies, but these, especially Collins, will give you some idea -- them and Paul's savior messiah combination.

spin

thanks spin...going into research mode..

aa5874 · 06-30-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

.... It may be that the Messiah expectations at the time were too all over the map for us to have any reasonable expectations.

But, if you are NOW admitting that you have no reasonable expectations of the Messiah then again you destroy your argument for the historicity of Jesus in gMark.

Your parameters for recognising the actual historicity of gMARK's Jesus is based DIRECTLY on large deviations from the expected.

Your theory is pathetic. More fiction means more history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I would like to find a good article/book that talks about what the Messiah expectations were just prior to Christianity arising. Can you or someone else recommend any for me? Thanks

It would appear that the author of gMark simply looked in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture for the expectations of his God/man Messiah.

Mr 1:2 -

Quote:

As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mr 9:12 -

Quote:

And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

It must be obvious that the author of gMark simply made his God/man Messiah say and do the things found in Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or some similar source.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2010, 01:20 AM	#114
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Michael Turton (Vork) on Mark

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.