JoeWallack

JW:
Expansion of the Inventory so far of "Mark's" use of intentional fiction:

1) Presentation of names:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction

Joseph of Arimathea 15:43

2) The theme of the disciples "following" Jesus.

3) The use of numbers.

4) The story of the Jews washing their hands with fists.

5) Extreme irony.

6) The story of taking up your cross (before the cross had been taken up).

7) Use of "Let the reader understand".

8) Balanced but contrasting structure.

9) Communications at Text versus Sub-text level.

10) Use of transliteration as code.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:

Super Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again with another great post demonstrating the likely fictional use by "Mark" of audience settings:

Mark’s rent-a-crowd

We can add this than to the other examples of "Mark's" use of intentional fiction:

1) Presentation of names:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction

Joseph of Arimathea 15:43

2) The theme of the disciples "following" Jesus.

3) The use of numbers.

4) The story of the Jews washing their hands with fists.

5) Extreme irony.

6) The story of taking up your cross (before the cross had been taken up).

7) Use of "Let the reader understand".

8) Balanced but contrasting structure.

9) Communications at Text versus Sub-text level.

10) Use of transliteration as code.

Combined with the evidence for "Mark's" use of The Jewish Bible, Paul, Josephus and Imagination as major sources for fiction I think it's already demonstrated that the default position for any individual story in "Mark" is fiction and there is not any quality external support to overcome the default position here.


Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" use of numbers as evidence of Stylistic intentional fiction, let the Reader understand that a favored style of "Mark" regarding numbers is to repeat 3, I said 3, that's 3 times. Typically, "Mark" does this in the context of prophecy. The thinking behind 3 is that once may be ambiguous, two may be a coincidence, but three is clear (four is right out as overdone). The objective Reader should note that the more important the topic the more likely it receives the 3 treatment. How many times did Jesus Teach and Heal? Who cares. But we all know how many times "Mark's" Jesus predicts the Passion:

8:31-32

JW:
In the Recognition scene "Mark" skillfully ties the issue of who Jesus is to what that means. Note the wonderful irony that the Passion is taught openly to the Disciples while the Teaching and Healing Ministry was taught in secret. Literally, the secret/open contrast means nothing. Figuratively, it means that per "Mark" it is the Passion teaching that was the important one (as always, think Paul).


9:31


10:32-34



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Superior Skeptic Neil Godfree (the Skeptical Spirit is strong in this one) is at it again looking at "Mark's" use of "A Way" “Make a Path”: Maurice Casey’s evidence of an Aramaic source for Mark’s Gospel, or Creative Fiction? (as in "I don't care where my kids go to college as long as it's A Way"). A side discussion here was "Mark's" presentation of a HAND'S theme in general and a specific usage in 6:

After spending a few minutes thinking about possible criteria to evaluate evidence for Literary Contrivance I came up with the following set up of criteria for starters:

Qualitative:

1) Parallels in potential sources

2) Similarity in language

1 – “Mark” as a whole

2 – Specific story

3) Common Theme

4) Unusual choices of words/phrases to get closer to subject

Quantitative:

1) Repetition

1 – “Mark” as a whole

2 – Specific story

2) Relative amount of story with subject

which as near as I can tell now makes me the foremost authority the world has ever known on detecting Literary Contrivance.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
One Literary style of "Mark" is to use the same tone at the start and end of a story to frame it:

1:41 = The start of the Galilean ministry:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

3:5, which everyone agrees has Jesus angry, is the end of the Galilean ministry:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_3


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spamandham

Going back a couple of years to earlier posts discussing the walking on water story, it occurs to me that *if* Mark was reading from Paul, that the boat full of 12 Jews might represent something other than just followers of Jesus.

Might it not be a reference to the Jerusalem church? If so, Paul = Jesus?

Russellonius

A succinct statement of the received view. By capitalizing “Gentile”, are you marking it as a theological category?

Suppose we assume that Jesus is a fictional character expressing the message of the producers of the texts. We find that Jesus belongs to a group that upheld the Law. But the final result of the miracles claimed in the text was that it is no longer necessary for Jews to uphold the Law. We may then conclude that the producers of the texts were Jews who did not uphold the Law. So they had Jesus – already known to the audience - do and say things that caused it to be no longer necessary for Jews to obey the Law.

Etymology dictionaries report that in the first century, the Latin root of the English word “gentile” meant “person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman” or “of the same family or clan.” Ethnos meant “people of one’s own kind”.

The wiki page reports the same thing. But they make a theological claim:
Did the disciples actually receive something from the Holy Spirit? If so the distribution of this product would become a concern. But if they did not actually receive a stock of immortality through faith in Christ to dispense, then the product they were distributing would have to be something else.

If we make a leap and do not accept that the supernatural product intended for distribution to the chosen people instead went to people who were not ethnically Jewish, then we would no longer have to ignore the two-thirds of the Jewish population who were assimilated for centuries in imperial Greek and Roman cities nor those in Judea who were not adherent to custom. And we would no be longer applying a theological doctrine to our historical analyses, unknowingly perhaps.

An astute historian familiar with Jason, Menalaus and the Maccabees incident should suspect that Jerusalem elites might try to pull something similar after the demise of the Hasmonean Dynasty.

Nobody seems to question the historicity of the Herodian characters in the story. At the beginning Herodias and her daughter were having a problem with a religious zealot. But then at the end, was there any problem with the marriage of Drusilla to the Roman procurator Felix? Do we hold it against Berenice that she had been married to a previous procurator, an apostate Jew who was second in command under Titus during the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple?

Hell no! The problem presented at the beginning of the story was solved. Hallelujah! Praise Jesus!

And the word went forth to the scattered Jewish nation, people of their own kind and those whom they illegally married and begot, those called sinners and outcasts by the religious right. It was to them that Jesus ministered in his fictional role as risen Christ.

Or if not, there would have to be an explanation for how the movement grew simply on account of the religious doctrine appealing to those outside the group in which it originated. Empirical observation in our own day finds this cause of growth to be insignificant. Again I’m afraid we must rely on miracles for this to have happened. Religion is a purely social phenomenon regardless of what they say.

I was surprised when I came here and found so many apparently skeptical people applying the Christian theological doctrine of supersessionism to their analyses as if it were historically established fact.

Please stop.

JoeWallack

JW:
Superior Skeptic Neil Godfree (the Skeptical Spirit is strong in this one) is at it again looking at "Mark's" use of "StraightAWay" Finding meaning in Mark’s “bad” Greek and distinctive style (Part 1)

Neil righteously observes "Mark's" crucifixion (overuse) of the offending word:

One Way than that "Mark" uses the offending word, is to repeat a Theme stated at the opening. Another Way is to repeat a word an excessive amount of times. Note especially how "Mark" selectively uses the offending word based on the section of the Greek Tragedy. “Mark” has rightly divided his Ministry/Passion sections through use of the Recognition scenes at chapters 8 and 9, half the Way through, with the Ministry before and the Passion mainly after. In accordance with the unimportance of the Ministry, these stories go relatively fast and are short. Note that most of the straightWays are with the Ministry. With the Ministry than you have a relatively long chronological time covered with proportionately little text. In contrast, the Passion is a relatively short chronological period which receives disproportionate text. The Passion story goes relatively slow and is comparatively long in details. Now note the infrequency of the “straightWay” in the Passion:

Of especial note here is the Ironic transfer of the straightWay attribute from Jesus to his opponents. In the Passion Jesus is now never in a hurry to get to schooling, he takes it like a son of man. But Judas is the one now in a hurry (twice) and the chief priests once. For contrast, observe how slow Jesus moves at the G-spot. So in addition to "Mark" using straightaWay:

1) To repeat a Theme stated at the opening.

2) Repeat a word an excessive amount of times to emphasize it.

He also uses it:

3) To contrast the Ministry verses the Passion.

4) To reverse the emotions of the characters.

This type of style is a long Way from a crude, ungrammatical account based on memories of Peter’s teachings (it should be obvious by now to the objective student that “Mark” is an original, sophisticated and thoughtful creation).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with "Mark's" use of repetition of key words as evidence of fiction, correspondent Michael W. Nordbakke righteously divides a chiastic example here at Super Skeptic Neal Godfree's sight:

Jesus was not a healer (1)

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_2

( http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...2&v=9&i=conc#9 = Greek)

"2:9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise[1][ἐγείρω], and take up thy bed, and walk?

10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy),

11 I say unto thee, Arise[2][ἐγείρω], take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.

12 And he arose[3][ἐγείρω], and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."

Verses:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_3

( http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...3&v=3&i=conc#3 = Greek)

"3:1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered.

2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand[1][ἐγείρω] forth.

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth[2][ἐκτείνω] thy hand. And he stretched it forth[3][ἐκτείνω]; and his hand was restored."

Note that the two offending uses in Verse 5 are a different word but the meanings and sounds are similar and with it you have the stylish 3-Peter in both stories and the out of place usage of "ἐγείρω" in the second story to connect the two and really emphasize the "rise".

Another stylish touch here (so to speak) are the deliberate short sentences here with the magic word:

"12 And he arose[3][ἐγείρω], and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all"

"And he stretched it forth[3][ἐκτείνω]; and his hand was restored."

The short containing sentences help to emphasize the key word.

(For those who are wondering, "Mark" sidesteps a 4-Pete in 12 (went forth) by using a different word "ἐξέρχομαι". Ha hah!)



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
The Legendary Vorkosigan has been resurrected!:

The Sword

I tell you the truth, I never believed in resurrections until I saw John Travolta in Pulp Fiction.

The Vorkmeister's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark is already the best historical commentary on "Mark" that has ever been written. Maybe if we all pray together he will update it and increase the gap.

Note that the direction of the Vorkster's methodology is the opposite of C BS (Christian Bible Scholarship):

1) First determine what is Impossible.

2) Than determine what is Improbable.

3) Than determine clear parallels to fictional sources.

4) Individual stories must have a minimum of the Possible and lack clear parallels to fictional sources in order to have a reasonable possibility of being Possible in total.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki