Kata Markon

[Hudson Barton <hhbv AT highwinds.com>]

> Though I don´t agree with JF Alward about the degree as to which Mark
> has created his stories about Jesus out of the OT, I do not think he
> has called
> the author of GMark a charlatan. That is a conclusion Hudson Barton has drawn
> himself.


Call it what you like, but an author who creates an account from his
own imagination or from pre-existing myth and then claims that the
account is historically accurate is a charlatan in my book.  Besides,
it makes for a reasonable explanation for why the NT writers
authenticated each other's work.  There is clear evidence that they
were concerned about the charge.

> I don't see the author of GMark claiming that he is writing factual history.
> That again appears to be a conclusion drawn by Hudson Barton without
> any evidence.

Well, I didn't actually say one way or another that GMark had such
claims, but rather I did say that Luke and John were definitive on
the issue.  When Luke describes an event which is described similarly
in Mark, he is confirming the Markan account (which was written
earlier), and when he at the same time says that his account is
historical, he is saying that the Markan account is also historical.
We all agree that the gospel accounts correlate well with each other.
So, if A is true, and if B = A, then B is also true.  This is the
equation that we are asked to accept as the premise.

My actual belief is that Mark was written before historical
authenticity had become a concern. To me, Mark and Matthew were
concerned with proving the divinity of Jesus and how he fits into the
grand structure of divine history, but Luke and John were concerned
with his humanity.

> Some gospels may claim to be historical. But that doesn't mean that a
> historian has to take that claim at face value all the time. I for one see a
> lot in all the gospels that is not historical, but fictional.


I sympathize fully with your difficulty accepting stories of
supernatural and other mysterious events.  Complete historicity is
however the authors' assertion.  No matter how much cultural
turbulence (or whatever) serves as the setting for the NT, the plain
sense of the assertion can not be taken away.

> Despite being the
> gospel most clearly pointing out that it is presenting the "truth" John is the
> most fictional of them all. If that makes the author, or more probable the
> editor, of the verses in 21:24-25 a charlatan is up for debate.

Nonetheless, the Church fathers took John's account to be reliable.
In fact, Irenaeus described his conversations with John's disciple
Polycarp wherein John's writing was said to be most worthy because he
had "reclined on the breast" of Jesus himself.  In other words, being
an eye-witness really counted for something.


> And you can find just as much "historical" detail in the NT that is
> totally uncorroborated
> and makes nonsense from a historical viewpoint. The census as
> claimed by Luke is such a
> thing.


The reference in Luke ii.2 to Quirinius as imperial legate of Syria
at the time of the birth of Christ is the supposed error here because
he is known to have taken this position some ten years after that,
and to have supervised a census at that time.  Apologists pose many
arguments which point to other enrollments, to another term of
Quirinius as governor when this could have happened, to a confusion
of Quirinius with Saturninus... and to other "possibilities".
Although the apologists' case is not a great one, it is not
unreasonable to think that the census occurred as described.
Personally, I think this one is an open question.  Apologists like
J.W. Montomery, F. F. Bruce, and N. T. Wright are also fairly open
minded on this issue,

There are inconsistencies between different editions of Josephus (who
never lived in Palestine at all) but that doesn't mean we can't take
Josephus as a primary historical source.   The fact of the matter is
that NT documents claim to be historical and they deserve to be
treated as such.  The presence of niggling inconsistencies in a few
places can not lead us to change the premise under which they are
studied.


> None of the authors of the gospels appear to have been a disciple of
> Jesus himself. But even if they were it doesn't take away the fictional
> character of much in the gospels.

Petitio principii!  You are begging the question in exactly the
circular manner of Mr. Alward.

As for your premise:

a. John was not only Jesus' disciple, he was closer to Jesus that most.
b. Mark was not an disciple, but he wrote under Petrine authority.
c. Matthew was one of the original 12.
d. Luke was not an eye-witness, but he was a gentile and an historian

> Jewish scribes knew the art of writing
> sacred fiction - just take a look at the OT.

I think there's a difference between fiction and falsehood.  Can you
clarify your intent?  We all know by now that Joe's methodology
allows no room for art in the rendering of a 'true' story, and allows
no room for truth in the rendering of an artful story.  Perhaps you
have a more adaptive approach to NT criticism.

I don't know a lot about "sacred fiction", but I do find the gospel
stories to be written with pointed understatement and attention to
minute physical detail.  As Ian Wilson, author of "Jesus: The
Evidence" (Harper & Row), argues, even critics have "been prepared to
acknowledge that the gospel material that is most likely to be
authentic to Jesus (though probably not without some fabrication and
re-touching) is his parables, some 30 or 40 of which are to be found
in the synoptic gospels. This view," claims Wilson, "is borne out by
the fact that if he, as a flesh and blood historical figure, had not
invented them, we should be obliged to look for someone equally
remarkable who had. In fact, they have precisely the same individual
quality that distinguishes his teachings. If they were facile
forgeries, put into the mouth of a man who never existed, we would
expect the rich man always to be the villain, the self-righteous man
always to be the hero - but this is far from being the case: they
always have an element of the unexpected..."


>  And how do you decide which messianic vision was the one the real
> Jesus held? It is hard to reconcile the more human prophet-king in
> Luke with the divine Logos presented by John. Both cannot possibly be
> historically true.


There are many christological views presented in the gospels, You
appear to be having a hard time reconciling them (God, man, spirit,
etc.), and you're not alone.  It was debated in the Church for the
next two centuries at least. However, I thought we were talking about
reconciling the gospel accounts with the messianic fervor of the day.
My point, admittedly a small one, was that the messianic expectations
bear little resemblance Jesus's actual claims, and thus lends
credence to the claims themselves.

H.