Vorkosigan

Hi Rodahi!

Have you read about Evan Powell's idea that John 21 was the original ending of Mark? See this site:
<a href="http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/" target="_blank">http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/</a>
and scroll down to the middle to "The Missing Ending of Mark"

Vorkosigan

rodahi

I read the article and found the hypothesis interesting, even if the reasoning behind the hypothesis is not totally convincing. I agree with the late Harvard professor Morton Enslin who found no good reason to presume that the ending at 16:8 was not the one intended by the writer.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi,
Your assertion that the narrative is fiction does not make it so. Maybe it is. Perhaps it contains both fictional and non-fictional elements.
There is NO evidence that there undeed existed a historical Jesus. The story is allegorical at best.

I have never stated that I think the writer of Mark's narrative is an eyewitness. Nor have I stated that the narrative is non-fiction. I think it is very possible that it contains both fictional and non-fictional material. As I have stated, I see no good reason for a writer to CREATE a fictional heroic character and then give him many negative qualities.
Unless the negative qualities don't bother the mythmaker teller too much.
Even the disciples are dumbest in Marks narrative. Its not only Jesus.

(BTW, have you read the narrative attributed to Mark? You suggested earlier that the writer mentioned Jesus "sweating blood," "washing the disciples feet," and "turning the other cheek." The writer includes none of those.)
Thats true, but I am sure one can find positive qualities that Jesus had. The parables etc.
Anyway, I don't feel very strongly about this issue and I would like to drop it. I see no connection between a story being senseless (according to you) and the story being historical.

Agnos1

Thanks, everyone, for being so helpful so far. Where can I get good analysis of the epistles of Mark, in regards to the historocity of Jesus?

Peter Kirby

Nowhere, there are no epistles of Mark.

best,
Peter Kirby

Agnos1

I meant to say "Gospel of Mark."

rodahi

1. Historians consider the narratives attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to be evidence of a historical Jesus.

2. You have not given good reasons why a mythmaker would create a character who has many negative qualities. You have merely shown that it is possible to do so. Have you considered the possibility that a historical Jesus existed and the writer included negative qualities because they were the ones Jesus exhibited?

3. I always try to go to primary sources when I discuss biblical/literary/historical issues (and I ask my students to do the same). Mark is THE primary source in this discussion. I have read this narrative numerous times and am quite familiar with it. You owe it to yourself to read it carefully BEFORE you conclude it contains NOTHING historical about Jesus.

We, as thinking, intelligent persons, can believe what we hear (or heard; I have been a non-believer for over 30 years) in Sunday School/Church about Mark. Or, we can believe many of the things commentators, in their diversity, say about Mark. BUT, ultimately, the best way to decide for ourselves what the writer says, is to read it carefully ourselves and think critically about it. I recommend reading The Complete Gospels, a Jesus Seminar publication. I do not agree with many of the Seminar's conclusions, but I think their translation of the extant narratives is as close as any to what the writers intended. Also, you might try The Unvarnished Gospels or The Original New Testament (Hugh Schonfield). To see a word for word comparison among the four narratives, read Synopsis of the Four Gospels. This publication contains the biases of the United Bible Societies.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
NB: The text that has been both emboldened and Italicised are those I have added after Peter Kirby portrayed me as a plagiarist for failing to indicate my sources.

1. Historians consider the narratives attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to be evidence of a historical Jesus.
Are you saying that these so-called historians believe that tombs opened and the dead resurrected and walked in the streets? Are you saying that these historians believe that a man could go for 40 days without food and still be strong and that water could be turned into wine? And they also believe that a woman could get pregnant without being impregnated by a mans sperm?

Historians indeed!

Or do these historians only pick what they find credible?

2. You have not given good reasons why a mythmaker would create a character who has many negative qualities. You have merely shown that it is possible to do so. Have you considered the possibility that a historical Jesus existed and the writer included negative qualities because they were the ones Jesus exhibited?
The mythmaker would have to explain to you why he created such a "negative" character. That it is possible is adequate. You, OTOH, need to demonstrate that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for someone to create such a negative character, which you have NOT.
You have merely asserted that "you see no sense" in someone doing that; the fact is, someone DID. Are you asserting that someone with such "negative" qualities is more likely to have existed historically than mythically? What are your reasons for such an assertion?
You need to make your appeal to personal incomprehension more compelling. So, far, its immanent in you.

3. I always try to go to primary sources when I discuss biblical/literary/historical issues (and I ask my students to do the same). Mark is THE primary source in this discussion. I have read this narrative numerous times and am quite familiar with it. You owe it to yourself to read it carefully BEFORE you conclude it contains NOTHING historical about Jesus.
Appeal to antiquity? I reiterate that even the earliest myth is still a myth.
I conclude its NON-Historical on several grounds:

1. Its extreme similarity to earlier ,myths Like the Homeric Epics (Iliad and Oddysey), Osiris' tory, Isis etc. From The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark,Dennis R. MacDonald explains how the Gospel of Mark could have been written. Among the parallels identified by Robert J. Rabel in a review of the book are: Odysseus and Jesus were both (sons of) carpenters and both suffered and endured many tribulations. They undertook heroic endeavors against a landscape of mountains, uninhabited regions, villages, and, most importantly, the sea. Each was surrounded by a band of foolish companions ,and each faced threats not only from a group of murderous usurpers but from dangerous supernatural foes like Circe and the demoniac in Mark 5:1-20 .Both also therefore resorted to secrecy. Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain (Mark 9:2-8) is said to be based on Odysseus' appearance to his son Telemachus in Odyssey 16, while his confrontation with the blind beggar Bartimaeus in Mark is modeled on Odysseus' meeting with Tiresias in Odyssey 11 . Odysseus' entry into the city of the Phaeacians prefigures Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, while Jesus' anointing by an unnamed woman in Mark 13-14 owes much to Odysseus' anointing by Eurycleia in Odyssey .Jesus' prayer at Gethsemane to avoid his execution resembles the end of Odyssey 10, Odysseus' "last supper" with Circe before sailing to Hades. Then compared to Iliad, Jesus imitates Achilles in his predictions of his imminent death, but otherwise he resembles Hector: both meet violent deaths and have their corpses rescued for burial--by Priam in the Iliad and Joseph of Arimathea in Mark .Finally, the young man at the tomb on Easter morning in Mark emulates Elpenor from the Odyssey. Mark's account of the death of John the Baptist was influenced by Homer's depiction of the death of Agamemnon. Mark describes two feasts at which Jesus feeds the multitudes in order to signal affiliation with the two feasts that begin Odyssey 3 and 4. "Hydropatetics" - finds Jesus walking on the water in imitation of the god Hermes, who flies over the water in both the Iliad and Odyssey. In brief, the book demonstrates that the gospel writers felt free to borrow and edit other texts, since at the very least Matthew and Luke did just that with Mark. They also took ideas from the Old Testament used midrash to add extra details. It's not unlikely a priori that these writers also took ideas from pagan traditions, especially given Paul's special interest in taking Christianity to the pagans. Paul himself said he wanted to be all things to all people, and he used certain pagan terms to explain his gospel, such as the Jewish-pagan combination of the "spiritual body."

Even Herods' baby-killing antic is very similar to the one in Moses' story. Compare Jonah spending three days in a whales belly to Jesus spending the same number of days in the tomb. Sumerian Innana also spent three days in hell before being resurrected. Prophecy or Mythmaking?

2. Its lack of Originality. Consider Psalms 22:1 and Mark 15:34 which say "My god, My God why have you forsaken me?". This is plagiarism. It is said Midrash was used to write the Gospels. If "Mark" (whoever it was) felt compelled to copy from the OT, then this is midrash at its best.

3. The anonymous nature of Mark makes it impossible to gauge how much credibility we can lend to his story. Including the idea that the original MSS were written in Greek, NOT Aramaic.

4. The late nature of the writing of the Gospels relative to Jesus' alleged death. It would have been impossible to remember all the details so many years later.

5. The total lack of evidence of existence of a hostorical Jesus outside the Gospels.

6. Mark's extreme ignorance of the Jewish customs and laws, meaning the Gospel was written by someone who was NOT a native Jew.

7. Lack of naturalistic plausibility about the claims made in the narrative ie the resurrection, driving out evil spirits, healing the sick(miracles) etc.

8. The irrational nature of the concept of Redemption, which is what the Gospels put forth.

9. Lack of any awareness of the early apostles about, Jesus' tomb, Calvary ,Nazareth or anything historical about Jesus.

10. Lack of internal consistency between the Gospel narratives.

11. Senseless nature of the Gospel stories: for example we are told in Mark 16 that "the women" bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body, YET we are told in John 19:39-40 that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already anointed Jesus' body, but even if that were the case, the fact that they were women and Jesus an adult male would have been questionable, even then, there was no case of anointing a well-buried body that had already been placed in a sealed tomb (it would have been ghastly to unshround the corpse to embalm it) even more ridiculous is the question they ask in Mark 16: "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?", yet they knew the stone was blocking the entrance of the tomb, were they that senseless?
And another example is In Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; Mark 8:31, and Luke 9:22 have Jesus telling the disciples that he will be 1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, (4) scoured, (5) crucified, and (6) raised on the third day. After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked, (4) scoured, and (5) crucified. Yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus’ statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected. Why?

This ridiculous narratives make it difficult to take the Gospels seriously.

12. The theological lack of necessity for a historical Jesus. For example Sumerian religions also had resurrected deities but the resurrections did not necessitate a flesh-and blood person. Innana is an example, she came down to earth, died, went down to hell and resurrected after three days. Osiris is another example. These religions can be used as "proof of concept" that Jesus could still have died and resurrected without manifesting as a flesh-and blood man. The idea that there was a Jesus of Nazareth came much later.

We, as thinking, intelligent persons, can believe what we hear (or heard; I have been a non-believer for over 30 years) in Sunday School/Church about Mark. Or, we can believe many of the things commentators, in their diversity, say about Mark. BUT, ultimately, the best way to decide for ourselves what the writer says, is to read it carefully ourselves and think critically about it.
Great suggestion. Respond to my "objections" above and then we see how critically you have thought about this matter.

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Peter Kirby

IntenSity wrote:

IntenSity, I have included your entire post even though my response only concerns a portion of it. This is because I do not want to be made to look a fool through the 'edit' feature. The comments that follow, if true, would damage your reputation. But I can say them because they are true.

Please let the reader note that there is absolutely no mention in IntenSity's (original)post of the Bryn Mawr Classical Review of MacDonald's book made by Robert J. Rabel on 2000.09.16 and avialable here:

<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-09-16.html" target="_blank">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2000/2000-09-16.html</a>

Now let me arrange quotes in a synopsis. The quotes in bold are from IntenSity, and the quotes in quotation marks are from Rabel. I will let the reader draw conclusions.

IntenSity writes: From The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Dennis R. MacDonald explains how the Gospel of Mark could have been written.

(No parallel.)

IntenSity writes: Among the parallels are: Odysseus and Jesus were both (sons of) carpenters and both suffered and endured many tribulations.

Rabel writes: "Odysseus and Jesus are carpenters who suffer and endure many things (Chapter 2)."

IntenSity writes: They undertook heroic endeavors against a landscape of mountains, uninhabited regions, villages, and, most importantly, the sea.

Rabel writes: "They undertake heroic endeavor against a landscape of mountains, uninhabited regions, villages, and, most importantly, the sea (Chapter 7)."

IntenSity writes: Each was surrounded by a band of foolish companions ,and each faced threats not only from a group of murderous usurpers but from dangerous supernatural foes like Circe and the demoniac in Mark 5:1-20 .

Rabel writes: "Each is surrounded by a band of foolish companions (Chapter 3), and each faces threats not only from a group of murderous usurpers (Chapter 5) but from dangerous supernatural foes like Circe and the demoniac in Mark 5:1-20 (Chapter 8)."

IntenSity writes: Both also therefore resorted to secrecy.

Rabel writes: "Both must therefore resort to secrecy (Chapter 6)."

IntenSity writes: Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain (Mark 9:2-8) is said to be based on Odysseus' appearance to his son Telemachus in Odyssey 16, while his confrontation with the blind beggar Bartimaeus in Mark is modeled on Odysseus' meeting with Tiresias in Odyssey 11 .

Rabel writes: "Jesus' transfiguration on the mountain (Mark 9:2-8) is said to be based on Odysseus' appearance to his son Telemachus in Odyssey 16 (Chapter 11), while his confrontation with the blind beggar Bartimaeus in Mark is modeled on Odysseus' meeting with Tiresias in Odyssey 11 (Chapter 12)."

IntenSity writes: Odysseus' entry into the city of the Phaeacians prefigures Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, while Jesus' anointing by an unnamed woman in Mark 13-14 owes much to Odysseus' anointing by Eurycleia in Odyssey .

Rabel writes: "Odysseus' entry into the city of the Phaeacians prefigures Jesus' entry into Jerusalem (Chapter 13), while Jesus' anointing by an unnamed woman in Mark 13-14 owes much to Odysseus' anointing by Eurycleia in Odyssey 19 (Chapter 14)."

IntenSity writes: Jesus' prayer at Gethsemane to avoid his execution resembles the end of Odyssey 10, Odysseus' "last supper" with Circe before sailing to Hades.

Rabel writes: "Jesus' prayer at Gethsemane to avoid his execution resembles the end of Odyssey 10, Odysseus' "last supper" with Circe before sailing to Hades (Chapter 16)."

IntenSity writes: Then compared to Iliad, Jesus imitates Achilles in his predictions of his imminent death, but otherwise he resembles Hector: both meet violent deaths and have their corpses rescued for burial--by Priam in the Iliad and Joseph of Arimathea in Mark .

Rabel writes: "As Mark approaches his account of Jesus' death, he switches from the Odyssey to the Iliad as his primary source. Jesus imitates Achilles in his predictions of his imminent death (Chapter 17), but otherwise he resembles Hector: both meet violent deaths (Chapter 18) and have their corpses rescued for burial -- by Priam in the Iliad and Joseph of Arimathea in Mark (Chapter 20)."

IntenSity writes: Finally, the young man at the tomb on Easter morning in Mark emulates Elpenor from the Odyssey.

Rabel writes: "Finally, the young man at the tomb on Easter morning in Mark is said to imitate -- or rather "emulate" (166) -- Elpenor from the Odyssey (Chapter 21)."

IntenSity writes: Mark's account of the death of John the Baptist was influenced by Homer's depiction of the death of Agamemnon.

Rabel writes: "Chapter 9 argues that Mark's account of the death of John the Baptist was influenced by Homer's depiction of the death of Agamemnon."

IntenSity writes: Mark describes two feasts at which Jesus feeds the multitudes in order to signal affiliation with the two feasts that begin Odyssey 3 and 4.

Rabel writes: "Chapter 10 claims that Mark describes two feasts at which Jesus feeds the multitudes in order to signal affiliation with the two feasts that begin Odyssey 3 and 4."

IntenSity writes: "Hydropatetics" - finds Jesus walking on the water in imitation of the god Hermes, who flies over the water in both the Iliad and Odyssey.

Rabel writes: "Chapter 19 ("Hydropatetics") finds Jesus walking on the water in imitation of the god Hermes, who flies over the water in both the Iliad and Odyssey."

IntenSity writes: In brief, the book demonstrates that the gospel writers felt free to borrow and edit other texts, since at the very least Matthew and Luke did just that with Mark.

(No parallel.)

Again, I will let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Plagiarism?
Look, I did not say they were my ideas, I said they were MacDonalds. I just used Robert J. Rabel to summarise. In any case, thats just 1 out of 12 points I made.
So I should have given Robert J. Rabel credit for the review and Dennis R. MacDonald for the ideas? Okay, okay. I apologise for that.
Jesus!

PS:
Even this is not originally my idea:
"And another example is In Matthew 16:21; 17:22-23; 20:17-19; Mark 8:31, and Luke 9:22 have Jesus telling the disciples that he will be 1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, (4) scoured, (5) crucified, and (6) raised on the third day. After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked, (4) scoured, and (5) crucified. Yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus’ statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected. Why?"
Not all that stuff I have pasted is original. Its not like I am publishing a book or anything - Jesus Christ! This is just a simple discussion! Do I have to keep saying oh, okay, this is not my idea but I agree with it..." Peter, I have debated with you before and you are here trying to portray me as a cheat! And for something I quoted the original author from which the ideas originated! There is no copyright on that stuff (compare with Earl Dohertys site) and I said the ideas were MacDonalds NOT mine!

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>