Vinnie

L: Paucity of gentile related material
M: I would add the baptism in here as well.

and yes, the paucity of Messiah related material (d) is very important as well as lots of the other points you raised

""""""Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.""""""""

One example will not demonstrate this as he could have done this in some instances and not others. His Gospel material needs to be evaluated collectively.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Specifically, what historical realities do you think these passages represent?

Within a mythicist context, the "messianic secret" theme serves to explain new information being introduced. It answers the reader's questions: Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this particular miracle? and Why did these guys from Jerusalem (i.e. the Pillars) wait so long to declare Jesus the Messiah or tell anybody about his missing body?

I don't see any "embarrassment" about the disturbance in the Temple. I see a fictional event created to explain why the Romans would be motivated enough to crucify Jesus.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
Specifically, what historical realities do you think these passages represent?

The ones I showed with a "S" mean "Mark" had to explain (and did explain somehow) the silence of eyewitness(es) on the items mentioned (here there was no historical reality).
The ones I showed with a "E" mean "Mark" had to put a good spin on something "against the grain" heard by eyewitness(es) (here there were historical realities).

Amaleq13 wrote:
Within a mythicist context, the "messianic secret" theme serves to explain new information being introduced. It answers the reader's questions: Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this particular miracle? and Why did these guys from Jerusalem (i.e. the Pillars) wait so long to declare Jesus the Messiah or tell anybody about his missing body?

Actually I agree with that, even if I am not a mythicist.
For your first question, the answer is, because the miracle did not happen, it was never told by the eyewitness(es).
For the second one, again, because that was never heard from the pillars, because there was no empty tomb and "these guys in Jerusalem" were never Christians.

"Mark" invented (among many other things) the empty tomb, all the extraordinary miracles, and Peter saying Jesus was Christ.

Amaleq13 wrote:
I don't see any "embarrassment" about the disturbance in the Temple. I see a fictional event created to explain why the Romans would be motivated enough to crucify Jesus.

I agree that event (with the "royal welcome") motivated enough the chief priests & the Romans to crucify Jesus, but I do not see why it would be fictional. Because "Mark" tried to apologize for it by combining two quotes from the OT, as to have Jesus fulfilling some scripture passages (explainig his actions). The problem?
This combination of scriptures do not fit what Jesus is reported to have done in the temple:

>> "Mark" tried to put a theological spin about Jesus' actions in the temple:
Mk11:17 "... he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,'? But you have made it a `den of robbers.'""
First, the quote comes from two different sources:
"My house [the temple] will be called a house of prayer for all nations" is part of Isa56:7. But "den of robbers" is from:
Jer7:11 "Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? ..."
But here, the robbers are not the merchants in the temple, but Jewish sinners who did horrible deeds (including stealing) outside and then felt "safe" because they would visit the temple afterwards:
Jer7:9-10 "`Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"--safe to do all these detestable things?
[no mention here of merchant's activities in the temple! No mention in the "Jesus' disturbance" of Jewish criminals/sinners using the holy place as a spiritual refuge!]"
Isa56:7/Jer7:9-11 (meaning, wording and "thrust") is so much irrelevant (relative to Mk11:15-16) that it cannot be considered the basis for Mark's narration of Jesus' disturbance. It is rather an awkward justification of Jesus' acts through some "reverse midrashism" (= attempt to explain an embarrassing fact as enactment of a scripture passage/prophecy). <<

However I have good reason to think that "Jesus riding the donkey" is totally fictional and meant to explain why suddenly Jesus would be acclaimed as "King" when he approached Jerusalem.

Everything above is explained with details on this page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vinnie wrote:
L: Paucity of gentile related material
M: I would add the baptism in here as well.

Ya, that would be valid, but I do not think it is as clear-cut as my other examples.
For the baptism, I do not see "Mark" making excuses that Jesus did not need it. But "Matthew" did, and "John" dropped it.

Vinnie wrote:
""""""Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.""""""""

One example will not demonstrate this as he could have done this in some instances and not others. His Gospel material needs to be evaluated collectively.

Well, Justin knew of several gospels/memoirs. So I do not think he needed a harmony.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Bernard,


Thanks for the clarification. I'll offer some "mythicist context" replies.

This is obtained from the historical rejection of the Q prophets.

These seem to me to be more in the theme of the “messianic secret” rather than embarrassment over historical realities.

You think this is historical? Seems like a myth told for instructional purposes with the fig tree being symbolic. Where/why do you see embarrassment here?

Quote:

j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)

Again, this seems part of the “messianic secret” theme but also appears to involve “inspired” reading of Scripture.

Regarding the scene of the disturbance at the Temple, you wrote:
My primary reason for considering fiction is that we know the Romans posted plenty of guards around the Temple courtyard where this event allegedly took place and it just doesn’t seem credible to me to suggest he would have gotten away with it. It seems to me he would have been killed or at least arrested on the spot. Second, the fact that the author of GJohn feels free to move the story from the end of Jesus’ career to the beginning suggests he, at least, didn’t consider it to be an historical story.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is obtained from the historical rejection of the Q prophets.

That's a lot far-fetched and very remotely evidenced (I suppose you are thinking about the Didache. But where did you get "rejection from their own villages"). The Q prophets are one theory will no foundation, just speculations. Even Q is being challenged as early and/or as independant from the gospels.

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These seem to me to be more in the theme of the “messianic secret” rather than embarrassment over historical realities.

The "messianic secret" is too often used as some magical formula (or aphorism) in order to explain what does not make sense.
If "Mark" did not have to deal with memories of what disciples said (or didn't), why not have Peter as a Christian and as a firm believer of resurrections?

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think this is historical? Seems like a myth told for instructional purposes with the fig tree being symbolic. Where/why do you see embarrassment here?

I noted that "Mark" had Jesus providing an explanation **away** from the cursed & withered tree, completely side-stepping any symbolic meanings for the fig tree, the cursing and the withering.

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this seems part of the “messianic secret” theme but also appears to involve “inspired” reading of Scripture.

Again, the "messianic secret' as the explanation. But later texts, GLuke & 'Acts' will removed that, with the disciples & Galileans starting the Church of Jerusalem very soon thereafter.
What "inspired" reading of Scripture passage?

Amaleq wrote:
Regarding the scene of the disturbance at the Temple, you wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…I do not see why it would be fictional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My primary reason for considering fiction is that we know the Romans posted plenty of guards around the Temple courtyard where this event allegedly took place and it just doesn’t seem credible to me to suggest he would have gotten away with it.

I do not think the Romans would jump the gun automatically if they saw a minor disturbance in the court of the temple, and more so if the disturber was surrounded by a crowd.
Such actions would have to be considered carefully and agreed from either the local commander or the prefect (if he was in Jerusalem), and with some of the chief priests consulted. Furthermore, I noted Jesus in Jerusalem happened at a times of weakness for the Roman rule over Judea. So they had to be careful. Any intervention in the temple by Romans soldiers could cause more problems that it would solve.

Of course, this is well explained on my website, more so:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes1x.shtml
and
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3.shtml


Amaleq13 wrote:
Second, the fact that the author of GJohn feels free to move the story from the end of Jesus’ career to the beginning suggests he, at least, didn’t consider it to be an historical story.

Ya, duly noted. But when I studied GJohn, I realized the gospel was developed over a long period (like 20-25 years) and the original gospel had the disturbance at the end, as in GMark.
Later, it got moved towards the beginning. Why?
Probably not to have the disturbance appearing to be the main cause of Jesus' arrest. More so that the resurrection of Lazarus had been added earlier, which the author wanted to be understood as the reason (indirectly) for Jesus' earthly end.

My study of GJohn here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml


Best regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan

One can also find a wealth of material "against the grain" in Gone with the Wind or The Lord of the Rings. The whole "against the grain" argument pre-supposes that the story is history, it does not prove that it is history. Fiction goes "against the grain" as well. Creative writers are not ReligionBots or CultureBots.

As for Vinnie's argument on gentile material, the force of that one exists only in Vinnie's head.

Let's look at some of this "against the grain" material:

The whole sequence of Jairus' daughter is a well-known fiction based on the OT, specifically that of the Shunnamite woman in Elisha. Jairus' name "He Will Awaken" strongly attests to the fictionality of this passage. In any case, Bernard, I can't figure out what you mean, since the text clearly says some of the disciples were with him during this event. Since the event is fiction, the posture of the disciples is fiction too.

You and Vinnie both miss this vital point regarding the argument from "against the grain." Where events are demonstratably fiction, the motive is irrelevant. From the historical Jesus point of view, so long as we can show it to be fiction, we need not worry about why it was constructed.The "why" question applies to another topic, the history of early Christianity.

Again we have fiction. This is Mark's human Jesus. Matthew, building on this, rewrote it so that Jesus refused to perform miracles, not that he could not perform miracles. In other words, Matthew, who was a lot closer to the source, treated this event as fiction to be altered at will. Since no human can perform miracles, this whole discussion is about a fiction.

Mark here is probably attempting an apologetic explanation of why nobody in the alleged home of Jesus has ever heard of Jesus the miracle worker.

Be serious. The miraculous feedings are fictions.Whatever actions the disciples take are fictional. It is Mark's habit to denigrate the disciples in his fantasy about Jesus' life. Why he did it I do not claim to know, but that is unimportant beside the fact that he did so. Mark may just be trying to explain why the disciples didn't tell anyone about these things that Mark invented, because they were not in the tradition.

Bernard, you have misread this passage. Jesus first asks who everyone else thinks he is:

• 27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
  28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."

Then he asks the disciples:

• 29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
  Peter answered, "You are the Christ. "
  30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

...and Peter answers. The disciples do not indicate any lack of knowledge because they never answer here. Only Peter answers, for reasons that are obvious in the context of early Church claims about its own history.

The event in Mark 8 is fictional. It takes place with the usual complete lack of chronological markers. Further, there is another marker of fiction -- immediately after this Jesus "calls the crowd to him." What crowd? From where? The text in Mark 8 never mentions any setting with a crowd. Clearly it is fiction....

Mark 9 is clearly fiction as well that continues the theme of Mark 8 and the general denigration of the disciples. As Tacitus once put it, a negative judgment is no indication of truthfulness in history. Your reasoning, Bernard, is entirely circular. In order to make this history, you first have to assume it is history. The reality is that this event is fiction. Note the laconic signal of place: "they passed through Galilee." Two fictional events, the Transfiguration and the Healing, take place just prior to this sequence. Clearly we are looking at fiction.

The Transfiguration is fiction (unless you would like to argue that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on a mountaintop). Therefore, all reactions are fictional. Perhaps Mark is simply trying to account for the fact that these stories don't exist in the tradition and he is making them up. Or maybe his wing of Christianity dislikes the disciples.

Bernard, how you infer that from this...

• 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

...is beyond me. Consider the following sentence: "Bob, Al and Neil discussed what quantum physics meant." Would you assume from that sentence that they did not know anything about the topic? No. Discussion implies discussion. It does not imply a lack of knowledge. In any case, since this occurs during the Transfiguration sequence, which is fictional, we know that this discussion is likewise fictional.

A well-known fiction based on the OT. There was never any disturbance in the Temple.

Can we stop now? This is a fiction. Trees do not wither when cursed. Peter's role says something about Mark's view of Peter, not what Peter did in history.

Also based on the OT (Zech) -- the story even cites the OT phrase that gave rise to the passage! As Helms put it, this is just one more example of Mark's "obsessive" focus on denigrating the disciples. The entire Passion is fiction-construction and contains no history whatsoever, except perhaps in its most basic outline.

Let's see....when people respond to fictional events....their responses are fictional! Paul does not know this story, and his whole sequence of events is different. Hmmm.......

No kidding. Because the other gospelers did not understand this as history.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

In reply to my suggestion that Mk's claim that Jesus was rejected by his hometown was inspired by the rejection of the Q prophets, Bernard wrote:
As far as I know, the prophets in the Didache are not portrayed as being rejected. The Didache community is instructed how to receive them and how to tell whether they are genuine.

The contents of Q, however, do describe prophets being rejected in the various towns they preached their gospel. These prophets are understood, at least by Kloppenborg, to have called this general area "home". The addition of apocalyptic warnings to the text is understood as a reaction to that rejection. In actuality, Mark would only have to be familiar with prophets, in general, who no doubt had less success gaining credibility among those who had known them their whole lives. I would expect the "act" worked best with an audience that had no prior knowledge of the "prophet". Think John Edward's babysitter believes he can talk to the dead?

I don't think I need to add anything more to what Vorkosigan has said except that I consider your inconsistent acceptance of the "messianic secret" as an explanation for new material to be arbitrary.

PTET

Hi all

J P Holding has entered into a discussion with me in a Theologyweb Thread.

He promises a forthcoming parody demolition of my page PTET answers Tektonics.

Just in case you're interested

PTET

GakuseiDon

Hi PTET, I'm a liberal Christian who has looked into some of these claims of Pagan parallels myself. I always suggest that people check the claims out for themselves with the source (like Hindu or mythology websites), and not rely on websites with their own agendas, like religioustolenrence, ANYTHING by Freke and Gandy, or Tektonics.

After checking the claims ofor myself, I found that a lot of these parallels simply have no basis in fact. Alternatively, I admit I've found some that do.

In your article http://ptet.dubar.com/christian-paganism.html#RK, you said: Could you name a few of these god-men who is killed but reborn, and will return at a future date to offer liberation?

Some contenders are:
(1) Mithra will return to judge, but he was a god, and not born as a man, nor does he die in the myths.
(2) Zoroaster wasn't a god, and died quite old. But it is "one from his seed" that will return to judge.

Do you have any parallel that is closer than these?

You also said:
Perhaps you should check some Hindu sites. Krishna was a "Saviour", true, but he "saved" by killing the wicked, including his uncle, the wicked King Kansa. Also, he was the 8th son of Devaki (not "Maia") who was definitely NOT a virgin when he was born.

The Trinity is Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Brahma is basically the supreme guy, and everything else is an aspect of him. Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, so there is a parallel to the "second person of a trinity", at one level at least. To my mind, it doesn't seem to represent copying though - what do you think?

Krishna was killed when he was shot in the foot by an arrow (mistaken for a deer!) I'm not sure "resurrection" is the right word to use, but it is true he then went to heaven.

The best thing to do is actually check these things out for yourself, as I have done. I suggest you check the list of parallels in the religioustolerence website at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm against an actual hindu website, and then see how many are actually valid. You may be surprised at the result. I'd be interested in hearing what you find out. Here is a good link to get you started: http://www.hindu-mythology.com/html/krishna.htm