I have read the book, and I can (relatively, since I am not the author!) confirm that if it is true that:Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:15 pmI may be able to lay hands on it sometime soon. In the meantime, may I point out that the summary of it at that link you offered indulges in a variant of the logical fallacy of which I wrote?Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:26 amI would be interested in a your critical review of this book.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:56 am
I cannot critique a book I have not read. I can critique only those which I have.
I show with multiple examples, that the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are based on literary allusions and that the character and teachings of Jesus are based on the letters of Paul. This shows that the writer of the Gospel of Mark developed the entire narrative of his story on his own and that the Markan narrative is not based on any oral traditions or prior narratives about Jesus.
Perhaps the book itself avoids this pitfall. That would be refreshing. It is certainly not fair to judge a book by its advertising summary.
But the statement above does not logically hold. That is, the premise (that the scenes in the gospel of Mark are based on literary allusions and the teachings of Paul) does not in any way necessarily entail the conclusion (that the author of Mark developed his narrative "on his own" without the help either of "oral traditions" or of "prior narratives about Jesus").
...from the other hand, the same premise also raises the concrete possibility that that implication is true.
It is the other fact (the fact that all the rest - about an earthly Jesus against a revelatory Jesus - is based on Mark and only on Mark) that makes absolutely true the conclusion of which above (=the oral tradition doesn't exist behind Mark, hence the historical Jesus didn't exist).
An analogy may be derived from the military strategy (or from chess game): if someone (the general "Church" ) defends a citadel only with the army X, and there is no certainty about the fact that the army X can really defend alone the citadel*, then it is vain to image that the general "Church" could command also the armies Y, Z, etc. (because otherwise he would have used also them to defend the citadel, contra factum that he didn't so).
*Just as there is not certainty that "Mark" alone can confirm or deny the historicity of Jesus.