Vorkosigan

Well, you can keep the distinction-without-a-difference if you like. The death-and-rising motif is screamingly obvious.


What "hiding"? The writer says plainly! (1)the people made fun of him and (2) he couldn't do miracles there! There's no way that we can talk about Mark if you keep imputing to the text things that aren't in it! Not only are you reading out the text as history without justification, you have to impute additional meanings to the text that aren't there, to support your a priori position on the text. Once again -- what enables you to read it as history? I already know that you do so.

Yes, well, as I said, since you have a priori decided that the text is history, naturally anything that doesn't indicate that is simply going to be set aside. The prevalence of Pauline themes, starting with the baptism, the citations of OT texts used in the Paulines, the numerous instances of parallel language, the fact that "historical" facts are all found in the Paulines, and the structure that the writer created, all indicate that he was thoroughly familiar with Romans, Galatians, 1 & 2 Cor, and probably Philippians as well. The writer does not appear to have any knowledge of the Pastorals or the duetero-paulines. Which is what we would expect, actually.

Also, nobody mentioned "the careful reader." But then you do have a demonstrated habit of reading into the text...you're welcome to examine my actual arguments, which are appended to the end of Chapter 10.

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark10.html

Ah, the faith-statement again. You've already asserted that you can read this as history. You can do that with LOTR or The Hunt for Red October or Eaters of the Dead. What enables you to do it here? So far all you have for an argument is your subjective judgment that it is "simpler".

Here's what you said:

• [There's a problem with your reasoning here. Now Matthew and Luke are presenting their works as if they were fact. As Ben C. Smith pointed out, the way Matthew defends the empty tomb story against the charge that the disciples stole the body presupposes a readership that will take him literally. The prologue of Luke also makes clear that he expects his readership to take him literally. Now Mark has probably circulated to more people than just Matthew and Luke. If Mark was recognized as fiction at the time, then one has to wonder why Matthew and Luke weren't afraid that someone wouldn't recognize the Markan material in their works and ask, "Why is this stuff I know is fiction in this work that's supposed to be fact?" If it was not widely known at the time that Mark was fiction, then what made Matthew and Luke privy to the knowledge that it was such?

How should I knew how they knew it was fiction? I can only go by what is present in the text; I don't have a faith-based historical methodology that allows me to invent what I need if it isn't actually there.

The fact that Matt and Luke present their work as some kind of true story is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to whether they knew it was false. It is obvious from their work that they know it is not a true story, for they move stuff around (like Mark 6:1-6, for example), invent stuff by paralleling, add to Mark's parallels, flesh them out, and generally indicate they know how Mark was made. How they presented their work to their audience is totally different issue.

Your argument relies on selective use of information and misunderstandings of the role of fiction in religion. If some people recognized it as fiction -- and that is obvious from the complaints that Christian apologists have preserved -- whatever makes you think everyone would? And if they did, why would they then become Christians? They are selected out, leaving only those who believe. It's like Heaven's Gate, Mormons and Scientologists today -- everyone outside the cults knows that they are frauds. How does widespread knowledge of their fraudulence matter? They still gain converts. The cult comes ready-made with a set of dismissals for arguments against -- the devil is twisting their minds, they hate God's people, they don't get us, they are jealous of our chosen status, etc, etc, etc along with a structure of control for enforcing System beliefs. Since conversion is a social process (people don't convert because they think the stories contain truth, but because they know someone or because of their cultural milieu, etc) converts can always be gained. The cult does not care whether the story is fact or fiction so long as it can control the tale and present it as it needs, fact when facts are needed, fiction when fiction is needed. It can even use the "embellished history" argument to sway more "sophisticated" readers of the text, since they can be counted to read into the text whatever is necessary to maintain the pretense of history. After all, the embellished history position is irrefutable.

Nonsense. Whoever added the angel and extra septaugint language to the Gethsemane scene in Luke knew full well where Mark got it from. Similarly the centurion's son, healed at a distance, is drawn from 2 Kings 4, with linguistic markers -- and not found in Mark. Again the story of the 10 lepers is an obvious literary invention based on the tale of Naaman in 2 Kings (with linguistic markers). Luke knows full well he's writing fiction (even you "embellished history" position concedes that Luke is a knowing fiction writer). Matt's error with Zech 9:9 isn't caused by a desire to suppress inconvenient information but from a desire to embellish it even further. So is the addition of a birth narrative that reproduces the common mythical tale of the infant chased by the king. Further, Matt heightens Jesus' miracles on many occasions and suppresses his failures or use of tools like spittle to accomplish miracles. Matt's fig tree wilts instantly, for example. Again, you selectively interpret the data, ignoring what doesn't fit your case, in order to shoehorn the texts into your reading. The "difficulties" are created by your reading, not mine, and they don't go away on your reading -- they simply multiply.

How they appear to present their text to their audiences is one thing -- Luke clearly intends to look like history, although his text is copied, invented. embellished, and edited -- How Matt and Luke constructed their fictions is another. I can only go by the data and evidence from the text itself -- I don't get to invent stuff or suppress it when I need to.

2 Peter and John are much later texts and cannot be used to interpret what Mark meant in 9:1. You don't have to spiritualize what the writer meant in 9:1. He may well refer to Jesus' crucifixion -- his glory -- or be a veiled reference to baptism as a Christian. Or to the figures who will be standing there -- Elijah and Moses. Being fiction, the line could mean many things. After all, the writer knew full well that the disciples "standing there" were fictions -- he invented them, except for those in the Paulines! So the one thing you cannot do is take that line on its face.

Vorkosigan

Chris Weimer

Michael,

What do you make of the argument that "except he laid hands on few people" is a later interpolation to strengthen the power of Jesus. I heard it used before, by an historicist no less, usually that the original Mark would have been too embarassing to use to show their Jesus as a man of power.

Chris

spamandham

...or perhaps the Jesus story was the way of the followers of John the Baptist to salvage their faith.

The following is pure speculation, but it does fit nicely with what we know. Suppose Jesus was a character in the stories taught by John the Baptist. After the execution of John, these stories could have been viewed as the resurrection of John - a mystical continuation of John's ministry via the propogation of his fictional teaching aid "Jesus".

We see this type of defensive posturing of "hey, you can't question me about this because these aren't my words, I'm just telling you what {x} said." throughout early Christian writings, indicating that either no-one had an original thought, or it was a common technique at the time.

If there was a historical person tightly wrapped up in the Jesus myth, we no absolutely nothing about this person, including when he lived/died, where he lived, what he taught, etc. King Tut could be the historical Jesus, or Julius Caesar, or the Essene teacher of righteousness, or John the Baptist.

Ben C Smith

John the baptist told stories?

Ben.

spamandham

How should I know? I prefaced the entire thing as pure speculation.

jjramsey

Vork, if you think there is no difference between a fake death and a real one, I can't help you.

Tacking on "except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them" constitutes hiding.

If Mark is so familiar with Paul, where's his high Christology? Paul is just a touch lower than John on that score, but Mark could easily support a more Arian view. Also, Paul offers far fewer nominally historical specifics than Mark, so the idea that "'historical' facts are all found in the Paulines" is false on its face.

You wrote,

It is one thing to say that Mark is structuring his text. It is another thing to say that this structure is meant to signal to the reader that Mark was using the works of someone who isn't even named in the text, namely Paul. The latter would require a careful reader to detect such a signal.

This canard was dealt with in another thread.

IIRC, none of the complaints preserved by the apologists indicate that the pagans saw Christian stories as fiction in the sense that Chaireas and Callirhoe is fiction, but rather as fiction in the sense of being old wives' tales.

I don't. Rather, I figure that if Matthew and Luke were intentionally peddling fiction as fact, they would have a healthy enough fear of getting caught that they wouldn't base their works on known fiction. You are basically arguing that Matthew and Luke chose to be sloppy and trusted that the credulousness of Christians would be enough to protect them from centure.

Point taken, but I think you are aware that propagandists both embellish and suppress. My point was that people can and do lie in order to "help" people see what is "really" the truth, and if Orwell's insight into doublethink is right, they make themselves believe that they are truthful.

Neither one of those is God coming to rule in power.

Nonsense. Mark 9:1 looks like a prediction of the end. 2 Peter especially points to disappointment in the end not having happened--which is exactly what one would expect if Mark 9:1 were an unfulfilled prediction.

Ben C Smith

Agreed. Mark 9.1 fits right in with the familiar speculation in the early church about who would be alive and who would be dead at the parousia, a speculation that presupposes that the church thought of itself as living in the last generation:

• 1 Thessalonians 4.15: For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
  
  1 Thessalonians 5.23: Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely; and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved whole blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  
  1 Corinthians 15.51: Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
  
  2 Corinthians 4.14: ...knowing that he who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you.
  
  Mark 9.1: And he said to them: Amen, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God having come with power.
  
  Mark 13.30: Amen, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
  
  Mark 14.62: Jesus said: I am. And you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
  
  John 21.22-23: Jesus said to him: If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow me. Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but rather: If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?
  
  1 Clement 23.3: Let this scripture be far from us, where it says: Wretched are the double-minded, those who doubt in their soul, those who say: These things we heard also in the time of our fathers, and behold, we have grown old and none of these things has befallen us.
  
  2 Peter 3.4, 8: Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. .... But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Ben.