Kata Markon

["Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>]

Antonio Jerez wrote:

>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.

Hudson Barton replied:

>>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 
>>Astudied.

I think you are fighting against a straw man. I am not arguing that that there
is nothing historical in the gospels (that may be JF Alwards view). I think 
there
actually is. But I´m claiming that the gospels mix real historical facts with 
fictitious
events and fictitious dialogues. In that sense the gospel writers worked very 
much 
like Josephus. Josephus invents dialogues for his heroes (a standard feature 
of "history"
in antiquity)and blends myths about Moses and others with real history. The 
problem for
a historian is to disentangle history from fiction.


>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.

I don´t know in what way I am using circular logic. If claiming that accounts
from antiquity talking about Godmen walking on water appear to be fictional - 
specially
when they smell of being blueprinted out of the OT - then you could just 
accuse all historians
of using circular logic when they dismiss such tales as history.

>>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

Those premises are not mine. I don't know where you got them from.

>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.

Yes, I think I have a more adaptive approach than Joe. I think the
gospel writers, just like their OT predecessors, were good at using
metaphor and fiction to express what they believed was religious
truth.

>>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..."

I don't think Ian Wilson is the best guide to the NT. I do agree with him
that some parables go back to Jesus himself, but the stylistical differences
between the parables specific to Mark, Matthew and Luke make it highly
unlikely that all come from Jesus. I'm not alone in thinking that a parousia 
parable
like The ten maidens is a Mathean invention written for didactic purposes. 


>  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.

If you are talking about the idea about a crucified Messiah going against
the standard Jewish messianic hopes of the day, then I agree with you.
If you argue that Jesus himself preached that he was going to be the crucified
Messiah as witnessed about in the OT then I am not with you. According to
my reading of the gospel evidence the idea about a suffering Son of Man was
the creation of the early Church. To make sense of Jesus unexpected death
his disciples searched the scriptures for verses in the OT that could explain
things (see Luke 24:25-27). They  found them in Isaiah and Daniel among other 
places. Obviously
the reinterpretation of these passages in the OT must have caught on among
certain Jews - if not we wouldn't have the Church.

Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Göteborg, Sweden