Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

I lay it out here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1724. I think that the gospels belong to the same genre as the narrative books of the Hebrew scriptures. They are not sui generis; they are not Greco-Roman histories; they are not Greco-Roman novels; and they are not Greco-Roman biographies.

As I have insinuated, I feel pretty good about that conclusion (both that I actually eventually came to one and that it seems sound to me). It is rather seldom that I get that feeling from the texts and remains we are evaluating here; usually things are more ambiguous than that for me, and that includes most of the topics you and I have debated before.

I read your OP and your final post on the thread, and, at first thought, I think you may be right, for the most part.
But I think this is due in large part because of convergence, rather than by a conscious effort by the gospels authors to imitate the genre of the Jewish narratives (however, they did it at times).

I agree with this. It is still a question, to my mind, how much was simply writing within the genre and how much was conscious imitation. I think both happened; but I am not sure of the ratio of one to the other, as it were.

Yes, the author of gospels stayed in the background (anonymous), such as the authors of the Jewish narratives, but for both, that was out of necessity: they did not want to be asked from where they were getting some of their "data" and claims, more so when those were first heard by the audience.

That may well be (at least part of) it. There may also be the desire to sound authoritative: this is not the word of Mark or Matthew or Marcion; this is simply what happened, and you need to accept it by faith.

I do not see how your findings impact most of the "against the grain" items in gMark and Q, these items that I declared to have a great probability of authenticity.

Well, I am sure it would have to be evaluated case by case. Once the comparison to Jewish narrative is made, one can see immediately that such a text may be dealing with accumulated traditions and possibly even contemporary or near contemporary witness (as I take at least some of Kings and Chronicles to be) or with pure fiction (like Judith or Esther). One cannot simply assume one or the other, since the authors have receded so far into the background as to make the decision impossible a priori.

One place where I find the "against the grain" thing to possibly fail, so far as historical authenticity is concerned, is at the baptism of Jesus by John. It is pretty easy for me to imagine the pericope being fabricated by some early tradent on the model of Elijah endowing Elisha with a "double portion of his spirit", and later writers having to deal with the fallout (this is why I said earlier that I think the "against the grain" thing can imply that an author did not invent the material himself or herself, but not necessarily that it goes all the way back to historical bedrock). I am not sure why the baptism would have to be authentically historical as you seem to take it here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1x.html, where you cut straight to your own arguments and do not really deal with the possible alternatives.

Again, however, I have no final word argument against Jesus having been baptized by John; I cannot definitively prove you wrong; it is just that I think the alternative is probably more likely than your presentation makes it out to be (especially since it really does not present an alternative).

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote: I think outhouse's comments were directed at Richard Carrier at that point (hence the line about publishing a book). But it was not very clear.

I made it quite clear when I was after Richards work.


This was clearly quoting the work at Bernards website.


Sorry did not mean to thread jack your OP and start this. Despite following a firmly evidenced historical Jesus like Bernard, I think much of mainstream scholars over attribute what is credible evidence here.

to Ben,

I agree with this. It is still a question, to my mind, how much was simply writing within the genre and how much was conscious imitation. I think both happened; but I am not sure of the ratio of one to the other, as it were.

Did you mean "not conscious"? I personally think the ratio is leaning towards unconscious imitation. The same factors affecting these earlier Jewish narratives were affecting
also the gospels, leading to some convergence about the genre.
One thing that "Mark" may have learned from 'Daniel' is the trick of having your hero/prophet predicting events after their time but before that was written (in secret).

That may well be (at least part of) it. There may also be the desire to sound authoritative: this is not the word of Mark or Matthew or Marcion; this is simply what happened, and you need to accept it by faith.

Another reasons for the anonymity of the authors of gospel might be, for most of them, that they were writing well after the facts and they were not eyewitnesses. No way the audience would be informed a gospel had just been written by a local guy (or gal).

Well, I am sure it would have to be evaluated case by case. Once the comparison to Jewish narrative is made, one can see immediately that such a text may be dealing with accumulated traditions and possibly even contemporary or near contemporary witness (as I take at least some of Kings and Chronicles to be) or with pure fiction (like Judith or Esther). One cannot simply assume one or the other, since the authors have receded so far into the background as to make the decision impossible a priori.

No disagreement here except I would object if anything remotely similar between an item in the gospels and another one in the OT would be interpreted as the gospel author copying on the Jewish scriptures. But I would agree for an evaluation of my "against the grain" items case by case (which I already did on many of these items).

One place where I find the "against the grain" thing to possibly fail, so far as historical authenticity is concerned, is at the baptism of Jesus by John. It is pretty easy for me to imagine the pericope being fabricated by some early tradent on the model of Elijah endowing Elisha with a "double portion of his spirit", and later writers having to deal with the fallout (this is why I said earlier that I think the "against the grain" thing can imply that an author did not invent the material himself or herself, but not necessarily that it goes all the way back to historical bedrock). I am not sure why the baptism would have to be authentically historical as you seem to take it here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1x.html, where you cut straight to your own arguments and do not really deal with the possible alternatives.

That's rather far-fetched: Jesus is never equated as Elisha in the gospel. Jesus is believed by some to be Elijah (NOT Elisha) in Mk 6:15 & 8:28 (way after the baptism scene), but next "Mark" had Jesus saying John is Elijah in Mark 9:11-13. More: Elijah and Jesus are shown on the high mountain, so obviously not the same entity.
Then if you can imagine any such thing, anything goes. That's definitively this kind of scholarly speculation that I abhor.
Well I put as little weight as you do on the baptism, even if I think there is a good chance Jesus did get the immersion in the water as probably most visitors of John did.
But I am adamant that Jesus stayed for months around John, up to his arrest for reason I explained in http://historical-jesus.info/hjes1x.html. "Mark" tried to prevent that (through words!) by having Jesus going away from John right after Jesus' baptism. But I think Mk 1:12-13 is forced and loaded with mythology, and therefore not true.

it is just that I think the alternative is probably more likely than your presentation makes it out to be (especially since it really does not present an alternative)

I am not the one to propose alternative just like the one you did. Is that the best you can imagine? I am not impressed. I would put that alternative in the categories of lofty intellectualism and ill-validated theory.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

I agree with this. It is still a question, to my mind, how much was simply writing within the genre and how much was conscious imitation. I think both happened; but I am not sure of the ratio of one to the other, as it were.

Did you mean "not conscious"? I personally think the ratio is leaning towards unconscious imitation. The same factors affecting these earlier Jewish narratives were affecting also the gospels, leading to some convergence about the genre.

That's the second time you've mentioned 'convergence' in this thread, Bernard -

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 919#p48919 -

I lay it out here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1724. I think that the gospels belong to the same genre as the narrative books of the Hebrew scriptures. They are not sui generis; they are not Greco-Roman histories; they are not Greco-Roman novels; and they are not Greco-Roman biographies.

As I have insinuated, I feel pretty good about that conclusion (both that I actually eventually came to one and that it seems sound to me). It is rather seldom that I get that feeling from the texts and remains we are evaluating here; usually things are more ambiguous than that for me, and that includes most of the topics you and I have debated before.

I read your OP and your final post on the thread, and, at first thought, I think you may be right, for the most part.

But I think this is due in large part because of convergence, rather than by a conscious effort by the gospels authors to imitate the genre of the Jewish narratives (however, they did it at times).

What do you mean by 'convergence'?

Thank you Kapyong. I just noticed your post: I was not expecting these compliments from you and of course you are most welcome to use what you want from my website.

I think your main two dating charts would really benefit from a make-over by a graphics pro.

Perhaps I could politely also suggest that your whole web-site could benefit from a re-do ?

You've done considerable work in the research and analysis, and have a great deal of useful information - but unfortunately the presentation is weak.

Seriously Bernard - your work is very good, but the web-site is poor, which diminishes its value and acceptance. Consider how the layout and beauty of say, Vridar, improves the presentation and value and spread of the articles.

The detailed work you've done deserves a professional presentation.

You are so right and I always felt this way. But I am not the guy who can do that, nor I have the resources to have it done by professional. Any volunteer?

Cordially, Bernard

I think your main two dating charts would really benefit from a make-over by a graphics pro.

Perhaps I could politely also suggest that your whole web-site could benefit from a re-do ?

You've done considerable work in the research and analysis, and have a great deal of useful information - but unfortunately the presentation is weak.

Seriously Bernard - your work is very good, but the web-site is poor, which diminishes its value and acceptance. Consider how the layout and beauty of say, Vridar, improves the presentation and value and spread of the articles.

The detailed work you've done deserves a professional presentation.

Bernard Muller wrote: You are so right and I always felt this way. But I am not the guy who can do that, nor I have the resources to have it done by professional. Any volunteer?

May I suggest you look at using Wordpress or even Google Sites?

and, if you do that, that you separate your paragraphs better; as well as use the same font and text-color for text.

to MrMacSon,
Paraphrasing what I found of the web and adapting it for my application:
The tendency of unrelated religious texts to display superficially similar characteristics because of similar circumstances.

However all definitions I found state evolution. This is not the case for Mark's gospel. It did not go through some evolution (but John's gospel did), and many other texts, either Jewish or Christian. Or the gospel genre evolved from gMark to the later ones to look in the same genre than the Jewish narratives: that's not true either.
Therefore I think now "convergence" was not the right word to use. I would replace it in most cases by "similarity" or "resemblance', due to some similar background, circumstances & purpose but not because the Christian authors wanted to imitate ancient Jewish ones and adopt their genre of writing.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:
to MrMacSon [re 'convergence']?

Paraphrasing what I found of the web and adapting it for my application:

• *The tendency of unrelated religious texts to display superficially similar characteristics because of similar circumstances.*

However all definitions I found state 'evolution'.

This is not the case for Mark's gospel. It did not go through some evolution (but John's gospel did, [as did(?)] many other texts, either Jewish or Christian).

or [that] the gospel genre evolved from gMark to the later ones to look [to be] in the same genre [as] the Jewish narratives: that's not true either.


Therefore I think now "convergence" was not the right word to use. I would replace it in most cases by "similarity" or "resemblance', due to some similar background, circumstances & purpose, but not because the Christian authors wanted to imitate ancient Jewish ones and adopt their genre of writing.

It's hard to read what you say Bernard because you do not separate statements relating to different ideas, or you do not appear to group premises relating to similar ideas.

Bernard Muller wrote:
However all definitions I found state evolution. This is not the case for Mark's gospel. It did not go through some evolution (but John's gospel did), and many other texts, either Jewish or Christian. Or the gospel genre evolved from gMark to the later ones to look in the same genre than the Jewish narratives: that's not true either.
Therefore I think now "convergence" was not the right word to use. I would replace it in most cases by "similarity" or "resemblance', due to some similar background, circumstances & purpose but not because the Christian authors wanted to imitate ancient Jewish ones and adopt their genre of writing.

Cordially, Bernard

Just to be clear.

You don't think Mark was a compilation of written and oral traditions compiled to save the traditions important to Hellenistic Proselytes due to the temple being ran over by Roman forces? That forever changed the way these first Christians shared traditions.

Bernard Muller wrote: It did not go through some evolution (but John's gospel did),

Cordially, Bernard

Not the same but as best we can tell, both evolved differently.


Book of John may have been a compilation just like Mark. But went through multiple major redactions/compilations.


At least with Mark, the ending was an obvious evolution.