Fictional Jesus Synthesis

[MrMacSon]

Regarding what Jesus says in Mk. 13, to me it resembles what [Josephus has] Fourth Philosopher Niger of Perea say in War 4.6.1:

Now when they were slaying him, he made this imprecation upon them, that they might undergo both famine and pestilence in this war, and besides all that, they might come to the mutual slaughter of one another; all which imprecations God confirmed against these impious men, and was what came most justly upon them, when not long afterward. they tasted of their own madness in their mutual seditions one against another.

And what Josephus says about Fourth Philosophers in Ant. 18.1.1:

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire.

You'd have to read Dykstra's book or mine to see the case for the relationship between GMark and Paul, it's quite definitive. That doesn't mean that it's all encompassing and that there aren't also other things going on, but Paul is definitely one influence.

I've wondered if aspects of War could have influenced the Gospel writers, and with rgprice's argument that the war did influence and are reflected in G.Mark, I'll have another look at it. There are a few people with key names in War IV, such as a John and a Jesus (or two), and a Simon or two.

[John2]

I have some spare time at work (which is one of the main places I use computers, since I don't want to own one) so I'm looking at your book while I can. And just so you know where I'm coming from, these days I take Papias (the first person to mention Mark's gospel) seriously when he says that Mark was a follower of Peter. So in that light, regarding what you write in chapter 2 (I can't see the page numbers) about how Mark "just so happens" to mention James, Peter and John, like Paul does in Galatians, I think Mark could have known about this from Peter (or other Jewish Christians), in the same way that Paul did. It can't be proven, but that's my inference because of Papias.

You go on to write:

What we find in the Gospel called Mark is that the relationship between Jesus and Peter, James, and John mirrors the relationship between Paul and those individuals in Paul's letters.

I'm thinking that Peter, James and John, prior to their conversion, were like Paul prior to his conversion, i.e., they did not understand (or believe in or were hostile to) Jesus' philosophy until after he had died and appeared to them. The situation seems similar to me as the sect that wrote the Damascus Document, which is said to have started when God had "visited them," yet even then, "for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way."

But you say you explore this more in later chapters and I will see if I can read that when I have more time. Your above points in chapter 2 are all I have time to address for the moment (and it's nice to be able to talk with you).

[John2]

MrMacSon wrote:

I've wondered if aspects of War could have influenced the Gospel writers, and with rgprice's argument that the war did influence and are reflected in G.Mark, I'll have another look at it. There are a few people with key names in War IV, such as a John and a Jesus (or two), and a Simon or two.

And there are also Saul, Niger, Philip and Silas in Josephus, all of whom are mentioned in Acts (which I think used Josephus, as per Mason). I think if the Saul in Josephus (who is mentioned just after the James passage) is not Paul, then Acts at least thinks he is Paul (I think he probably is Paul, though). As for the other guys, I'm still looking into them. It's at least a curious coincidence, if nothing else.

[MrMacSon]

... these days I take Papias (the first person to mention Mark's gospel) seriously when he says that Mark was a follower of Peter. So...regarding what you write in chapter 2...about how Mark "just so happens" to mention James, Peter and John, like Paul does in Galatians, I think Mark could have known about this from Peter (or other Jewish Christians), in the same way that Paul did. It can't be proven, but that's my inference because of Papias.

Most if not all of what we know about what Papias is supposed to have said is via Eusebius, who often seems to be embellishing the narratives as if creating an illusion of a historical record.

[rgprice]

There's no preview for Dykstra's book on Google books (which is my only option right now), but I can see part of your book Deciphering the Gospels here and will take a look at it now.

https://books.google.com/books?id=23poD ... rk&f=false

And while I see Mark as being more influenced by the Fourth Philosophy than Paul, I at least agree that Paul is one influence (like he was on Peter). I even think Mark is the Mark mentioned in Phm. 1:24 (and 1 Pet. 5:13).

And I used to think Mark was Pauline and have only recently changed my mind. But I look forward to reading what I can see of your book. I think it's a great subject whatever one concludes.

I highly recommend Dykstra's book.

In fact there are two books that I didn't read prior to writing my book that really support major aspects of the case I make and which go into more detail on those points than my own book. Those are Dykstra's book on GMark & Paul and Adam Winn's book on GMark and the Elijah & Elisha narrative. Note that Winn is a very devout Christian and does not come to the conclusion that GMark is fictional, but nevertheless, his analysis of the Elijah & Elisha narrative in GMark is excellent.

[John2]

MrMacSon wrote:

Most if not all of what we know about what Papias is supposed to have said is via Eusebius, who often seems to be embellishing the narratives as if creating an illusion of a historical record.

I appreciate the need to be careful with Eusebius. In Papias' case, and bearing that in mind, I'm comfortable with what Eusebius cites and says about him, as much as I am with what he cites and says about Hegesippus (which is very). Both of them espouse views that Eusebius does not agree with, and I find what they say to be very helpful for understanding relatively early Christianity (early to mid second century CE). I even think they both pre-date Acts and that Acts may have used them.

[John2]

rgprice wrote:

I highly recommend Dykstra's book.

I have access to a copy of it now and look forward to reading it along with what I can see of yours.

[outhouse]

I just put up a new article on this issue here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... thesis.htm

You cannot substantiate that the writer of mark was a follower of Paul, mark was a compilation, some parts existed before Pauline text circulated.

While much of the text was written to combat perceived heretical views using rhetorical prose in his epic, you overstate YOUR case.

There is no way with such limited evidence to substantiate a Pauline influence. If you find a connection you could not disprove a common source was used.

[MrMacSon]

... there are two books that I didn't read prior to writing my book that really support major aspects of the case I make and which go into more detail on those points than my own book. Those are Dykstra's book on GMark & Paul, and Adam Winn's book on GMark and the Elijah & Elisha narrative. Note that Winn is a very devout Christian and does not come to the conclusion that GMark is fictional, but nevertheless, his analysis of the Elijah & Elisha narrative in GMark is excellent.

Another book on the Elijah & Elisha narrative is Thomas L Brodie's "The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model of the Gospels". The Kindle sample is just the preface: mostly reproduced here, though one section is out of order* (for the sake of fluency), and the single inverted commas around 'problem' are mine -

Preface

One of 'the basic problems' in biblical research is the very nature of the foundational narratives—the nature of the story of Israel (Genesis-Kings), and the nature of the story of Jesus (the Gospels). To what extent are these accounts history? Or biography? Or revelatory stories? Or some more complex genre? And what if anything is the link between the history-like story of Israel and the biography-like story of Jesus?

'The problem' emerges acutely in one particular narrative. As the Primary History (Genesis-Kings) is drawing to a close it suddenly blossoms into a form of prophetic biography—into the striking portrayal of two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 16:29–2 Kgs 13:25). This prophetic narrative breaks new ground and presents new vivid images, particularly the image of Elijah’s fire-borne assumption into heaven and the imparting of his spirit to Elisha. Later, having recounted Elisha’s enigmatic death, the Primary History resumes its rough course and the memory of the two prophets is left hovering ...

*... the Elijah-Elisha narrative is so written that it distills the entire Primary History. It is not just Moses who is echoed in this narrative; so are Genesis, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and the rest of 1 and 2 Kings ...

For twenty-five years I worked regularly with this prophetic narrative (1 Kgs 16:29–2 Kgs 13:25), convinced it was important but not knowing why. Though I used it as a basis for a dissertation (“Luke-Acts as a Rewriting of Elijah-Elisha,” 1981) and for several articles, its nature remained elusive. Yet its importance was clear. Elijah and Elisha are central to Jewish memory. For instance, to this day during the Passover meal a door is opened to allow Elijah to return—an extraordinarily powerful ritual when one experiences it for the first time. And the importance is confirmed by several other factors. Scholars agree that Elijah sometimes echoes the great Moses.

Elijah in turn is echoed in Jesus: Jesus was sometimes seen as Elijah, and in his inaugural speech at Nazareth he explicitly invoked the examples of both Elijah and Elisha (Luke 4:25-27). Raymond E. Brown (“Jesus and Elisha,” 1971) has indicated that the primary literary precedents for the Gospels are the prophetic biographies, especially that of Elisha. And in my own work there was repeated detailed evidence that the writers of the Gospels, especially the author of Luke-Acts, made deliberate literary use of the Elijah-Elisha narrative.
. . . .
The Elijah-Elisha narrative ... is...a literary model for the Gospels. The Gospels of course are quite different—distinct in content and in complexity of genre. But the Gospels’ foundational model is the Elijah-Elisha narrative. By shifting the emphasis of the Primary History —from history toward biography, and from history toward the (prophetic) word— the account of Elijah and Elisha prepared the literary way for the writing of the Gospels. Thus the Elijah-Elisha narrative constitutes the key bridge between the foundational narratives of Judaism and Christianity.

These two ideas—the Elijah-Elisha narrative synthesizes the Primary History and provides a basic model for the gospels—are relatively simple, but their details are immensely complex, and it is not possible for the present writer to embark on a full analysis. What is given here is a summary demonstration; brief, but hopefully sufficient to communicate the essential thesis and to prepare the ground for further research. Such research should contribute in turn to a clearer sense of the very nature of biblical narrative. In this brief study, priority goes to the first part of the thesis—to the role of the Elijah-Elisha narrative as an interpretive synthesis of the Primary History. The second part—Elijah-Elisha as a model for the Gospels—has already been begun by others and must await a much longer study.

Brodie, Thomas L. The Crucial Bridge ... Liturgical Press.

There is one brief Amazon review that says in part, ''not as good as Winn's book on Elijah and Elisha. Interesting insight into the how this narrative [is] included in the gospels. Have read his other book, 'the Birthing of the New Testament,' in which some points are stronger than others."

Brodie has been an academic Dominican priest who has published several books (many about the Gospel of John and it's origins), and his "Birthing of the New Testament" The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings" has been highly regarded as a key scholarly work on 'intertextuality'. He created controversy in orthodox circles in 2012 when he published "Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus".

[John2]

I'm at work again and reading Deciphering the Gospels in bit by bit mode, and I feel the need to respond to this statement:

At the time that Paul was writing his letters, however, sometime around 50 CE, the Gospels had not yet been written. The "gospel" that Paul talks about here is simply the teachings of the Jesus cult.

While I agree with the idea that the gospels had not yet been written in Paul's time, I think the gospel he is talking about in Galatians is his gospel, the one he refers to in 2:2 ("I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles"). And I don't get the impression that Jesus teaches anything in Mark that is like this (Torah-free) gospel.

You also write:

It appears that author of Mark picked up the phrase [Kingdom of God] from Paul, and the phrase made its way into the other Gospels via copying from Mark.

Here's one I have an easier time accepting. I think Mark did know Paul (even Christians who had not met him had at least heard about him, as he says in Gal. 1:22-23) and is the same Mark mentioned in Phm. 1:24, where Paul calls him one of his "fellow workers." So maybe there is some cross fertilization going on here.

And I like your observation that Mk. 7:20-23 resembles (if not exactly, as you go on to note) Gal. 5:19-21. I never noticed that before.

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

About this, you write:

Keep in mind that the Gospel called Mark was written decades after the works of Paul were written, that Paul's teachings are never presented as being Jesus' teachings by Paul, that Paul claims not to have learned anything about Jesus from anyone else (though the truth of this could be called into question), and Paul never claims to have any knowledge of Jesus other than from revelation.

Maybe there is something to this one too. This deserves some more thought. For now, factoring in the idea that Mark was a follower of Peter, and being in the camp that calls into question that Paul did not learn anything about Jesus from anyone else, all I can think is that maybe both Paul and Mark learned something similar from Peter and other Jewish Christians.

For example, Paul's discussion of food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality resembles what James and other Jewish Christians proscribe in Acts 15 and Rev. 2 and the Didache (which is thought to have been written relatively early and in a Jewish Christian milieu). And both Mk. 7 and Gal. 5 above resemble Did. 5:1:

But the Way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness.

This puts more weight in the "common source" camp for me.