andrewcriddle

I think there are two issues here.

Assume that something like Mark Goodacre suggests is true and the pre-Markan church had developed for purposes of worship an account of the last 24 hours of Jesus' life starting with the last supper ending with the burial. This account being the basis for much of Mark 14-15.

Maybe this wouldn't guarantee the historical accuracy of Mark 14-15 (that it really happened like that). However it would strongly support the historical intention of Mark that he believed that Mark 14-15 was more or less how it happened.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Unless you have testimony from ancient readers indicating that to be true, I tend to question the basis for the opinion.

Since I was using "fiction" and "history" as they are currently defined, I would have thought that was obvious.

Amaleq13

That seems to require that we also assume that the author of Mark was unaware that the story of Jesus' last hours was not based on recollections or records of "what actually happened" but I do not find the apparently deliberate construction of his Gospel to support such an assumption.

Ben C Smith

I am not aware of very much written in antiquity about fiction. For history and biography, however, we have Lucian and quite a few prologues (including that of Luke) describing the goals of ancient historiography. The differences between the genre(s) Lucian and the prologues are discussing and the apparent aim of a work like the Satyricon are numerous and palpable.

Lucian, How to Write History, is conveniently available in a Loeb volume, translated by K. Kilburn.

My point was that I suspect you are trying to read the ancient texts with a modern typology in mind that their own authors would not recognize culturally, and to do so could prove fatal to determining genre, since genre is defined culturally.

Ben.

GakuseiDon

Andrew Criddle explained my point better than I did. It is a question of "historical intention". If Mark is using Paul, Mark has included something that Paul believed really happened. The most reasonable explanation for this is that Mark includes it because he thought it actually happened. It goes towards Mark's intentions -- however he decided to structure his gospel, he intended to include events that were believed to have happened.

I don't think it is as bleak as that. If Paul believed Christ died in Doherty's "world of myth" fantasy, then Mark is writing fiction. If Paul believed that Christ died on earth, then Mark is clearly intending to include events because he thought they happened. Since IMHO the "world of myth" is a product of Doherty's imagination, it must be the later.

If it is the later, then is there any reason to assume that there wasn't actually a night when Christ was handed over? If Goodacre is correct, Paul is referring to an event that is already known by his audience. Of course, we can't know for sure whether Paul is correct or not, but in the normal sequence of events, wouldn't we assume that this probably happened, unless there was evidence to the contrary?

Amaleq13

That appears to me to be theological intention that has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to record history though it certainly would have been regarded as "true" by that group. If Andrew is correct, and I think it accounts for the evidence quite well, they were creating a narrative to describe their beliefs. We can assume that this would only be necessary if nobody actually knew what had "really happened" but I think we can also assume that nobody particularly cared if it described "what really happened" as long as it accurately described what they believed.

If this is correct, Paul accepted that narrative as part of his conversion to their beliefs and, in turn, shared it with his congregation.

If this is correct, Mark's author generally accepted that narrative and included a variation of it as a part of his larger narrative describing his beliefs. While Paul's story of the night and Mark's story of the night may have differed in detail, both accurately described what they believed and that was all that mattered.

If this is correct, there is no "historical intent" to describe "what really happened" but certainly an intent to describe beliefs in a narrative form. The assumption that the narrative follows from knowledge rather than faith is utterly without merit as far as I can tell.

If Mark is using Paul, Mark has generally included something that Paul accepted as describing what he believed while apparently feeling free to change it. What doesn't change is the representation of what was believed as part of their faith in Christ.

Not necessarily. Another, at least, equally reasonable explanation is that Mark includes a variation of it because he thought it generally described something he believed but not necessarily "what really happened". He believe Jesus had a final meal and he believed Jesus instituted the eucharist tradition but the details were secondary and apparently somewhat fluid. It seems to me entirely misleading to refer to this as "historical intention" or a belief in "what actually happened". The narrative appears to follow from faith not knowledge.

Were they certain that what they believed "really happened"? Absolutely. Did they know how it "really happened"? I see no evidence of any such knowledge though I think the terms you prefer imply it despite the absence of support.

Why muddy the waters by dragging Doherty into this? It serves no purpose but to create confusion since I am not arguing from his position.

Mark is clearly intending to include events because they describe what he believes and that clearly includes sifting through Hebrew Scripture for anything remotely relevant and, quite possibly, even his own imagination.

His story describes his beliefs and he believed his beliefs to be true but that is certainly not the same as believing his narrative actually happened the way he wrote it. He was devout, not schizophrenic.

GakuseiDon

I don't really disagree with anything here, other than the assumption being "utterly without merit". Of course we don't know for sure that what is being described really happened, but all things being equal, shouldn't the natural assumption be "they believed something like it happened because something like it probably DID happen"? That is, Paul's audience knew that something happened on the night that Christ was handed over because something did happen involving Christ on that night.

Yes, fair point. My bad. And I promised myself to keep away from that topic for a while

Vorkosigan

Not in the slightest, and certainly not "strongly!" What it shows is that the writer of Mark felt the tale fit his narrative purposes. The idea that the writer of Mark is making some kind of "historical" comment on Paul is unsupportable -- after all, he must know from reading Paul that Peter is a bigwig in the Church of his day, but he has Peter collapse in heap at the end and totally betray Jesus, in an obviously invented scene, without providing any corresponding explanation of how he would up a pillar in Jerusalem. He must know that James is The Man but you would never know that from reading Mark; only by backreading other history into Mark. He adds a totally new character, Judas, whom Paul does not mention and presumably doesn't know, inventing him out of the OT. The writer of Mark used history like any real author does: as grist for his mill. The writer of Mark is creating a narrative, not regurgitating history.

Vorkosigan

TedM

I think I agree with you Vork. We can't know Mark's intentions for certain just by knowing the source or content of his inspiration.

Your examples DO show that Mark wasn't relying on Paul alone. That's ALL they show. As I've argued elsewhere, I don't see strong evidence that he relied on Paul's letters AT ALL--which would include the last supper account. The contradictory nature of his presentations re Peter and James to Paul's could be considered as support for that view, but as stated above, neither the source or content can be used to know Mark's intentions for certain.

Clearly he had knowledge of some existing belief in a last supper event, but WHO that was from is NOT clear.

ted

Amaleq13

I thought about replacing "merit" with "supporting evidence". Given your subsequent reliance upon "the natural assumption" to preserve the conclusion, that would appear to be accurate.

If we are only talking about a "last meal", sure. But the institution of the eucharist is another story entirely (pun intended). I just don't think that is a sound, let alone "natural", assumption given the specific liturgical usefulness of the scene for Paul's community. It is exactly the sort of thing that religious sects make up to justify their beliefs. Did Jesus know he was going to die the next day and turn the bread and wine into symbols to remember him but some folks recalled his words as relating to a sacrifice while other recalled it as relating to inspired wisdom/established community? Or it is more reasonable to imagine both of those as something created by post-resurrection believers to justify their interpretations of his death?