Difflugia wrote:Goose wrote:I think you may be misunderstanding what liamconnor has suggested here. I don’t think he meant “friend and foe alike were claiming miracles within 40 years.� I think he meant that 1) within 40 years miracles were attributed to Jesus as well as 2) miracles were attributed to Jesus by both friend and foe. Those are two separate propositions. There’s no timeline assertion by liamconnor, as far as I can see, as to when the “foe� may have attributed miracles to Jesus. Only that “foes� did not deny the miracle claims.
You may be right, but then I'm not sure what the point is. I understood his question to mean that Jesus developed a reputation for miracle working with both His supporters and detrators, implying that there was stronger evidence of His having worked miracles.
Yes I think that would be a good summary of how I would understand the second point and its implication.
Goose wrote:Keep in mind that the Romans sacked Jerusalem in AD 70 such that "the Temple courts ran with blood."
This is an interesting counter argument. But I think upon scrutiny it is quite weak.
Firstly, a minor point.
There is some doubt among modern scholarship that Josephus’ estimates were even possible. By about 132 AD (60 some odd years later) there was a Jewish fighting force of as many as 400,000 men according to some sources in the Bar Kokhba Revolt against the Romans in Judea. Cassius Dio estimates 580,000 Jews were killed in that revolt (Dio,
Roman History 69.14.1). If these estimates hold water, there quite clearly had to be a large Jewish population remaining after the events of 70 AD.
I understand liamconnor's argument to be, in essence, that it's implausible to think that Mark wrote his Gospel without consulting eyewitnesses. This part of my response is to say that, independent of other factors, it's not implausible that enough of the eyewitnesses were killed by the Romans in AD 70 such that "zero eyewitnesses were alive and available for interview." Whether the number given by Josephus was correct, the slaughter was such that witnesses to the crucifixion (to pick one of few events that most scholars would agree happened and wasn't completely made up) were perhaps in short supply.
The accuracy of the number given by Josephus is important to your argument. Equally important is how much of the Jewish population in Jerusalem was killed in 70 AD. Remember you are arguing that the probability of there being “zero eyewitnesses were alive and available for interview� was “reasonably likely.� That means if, say, fewer than half of the Jews in Jerusalem were killed then we have a probability <.5 that all the witnesses were killed. Granting of course that
all potential witnesses just happened to be in Jerusalem at the time. Unlikely in and of itself, but I will grant it for the sake of argument here. This means you necessarily must argue for as high a death toll in relation to the population as you can. The higher the number of the deaths relative to the population of Jerusalem, the higher the probability there were no witnesses. If, say, nine out of ten Jews were killed this implies a higher probability (still not a zero probability though) there were no witnesses than if, say, one in every three Jews were killed. Thus my counter argument is that Josephus’ estimates are impossibly high and there were many Jews who survived. So many survivors that within only sixty years there was a Jewish fighting force of as many as 400,000 men and a further 580,000 Jews killed in the Bar Kokhba Revolt. That implies a significant amount of Jews surviving after 70 AD. Which in turn implies a higher probability there were witnesses who survived.
Now, if all you want to argue is that witnesses were “perhaps in short supply� then we have no further argument here since that says nothing about the probability that there were "zero eyewitnesses were alive and available for interview." In fact, arguing “witnesses were perhaps in short supply� tacitly concedes there were witnesses.
Goose wrote:Secondly, and most importantly, an underlying assumption in your argument here is that all the witness were in Jerusalem during the events of 70 AD. What evidence supports that? Because there is some evidence that would falsify that assumption.
The argument in the OP was that there were enough witnesses that it didn't matter if the Gospels were written by witnesses themselves. I suspect that most or all of the Jerusalem Church (as described by Paul in Galatians 1) were killed by the Romans in AD 70. This is
speculation, but I think it's
reasonable speculation. Without the Jerusalem Church, there was nobody left to tell the real story of Jesus to the four evangelists. Do you have evidence that such speculation is unreasonable?
The fact it is nothing more than speculation is evidence enough it is unreasonable. I’m asking for
evidence all the remaining witnesses were in Jerusalem c. 70AD, not your opinion on whether you think your speculation is reasonable. Your whole argument hinges on this premise and all you seem to be able to offer in the way of evidential support is your suspicion.
Goose wrote:Ah, but you see Homer’s
Odyssey was the genre of Greek Epic Poetry. A genre known to be mythology. See Aristotle’s
Poetics where he uses Homer’s works as case studies on how to create the plot, characters, etc. of Epic Poetry.
The Gospels are not thought to be poetry or even, strictly speaking, the genre of a history. The Gospels are thought to be a type of ancient biography.
But not
clearly so, particularly in light of what's been called
"mimesis criticism", or examining a text (the Gospels, in this case) as the product of imitation (conscious or unconscious) of other source Material. Dennis R. MacDonald sees direct, conscious imitation of Homer in Mark, Luke, and Acts, as well as several extrabiblical, Christian writings.
I quote from the introduction of MacDonald's
The Gospels and Homer: Imitations of Greek Epic in Mark and Luke-Acts:
Mark’s imitations of Homer can account for much of the information about Jesus in Mark that outstrips anything found in Paul or the lost Gospel [reconstructed by MacDonald in Two Shipwrecked Gospels as The Logoi of Jesus -Diff.]. In the Odyssey one finds adventures at sea, feasts for thousands, cavemen, inept and cowardly comrades, a meeting with the dead, murderous rivals, the hero’s secrecy, and the recognition of his true identity. Here too one finds analogs for many of Mark’s most memorable characters, such as the Gerasene demoniac, the Syrophoenician woman, blind Bartimaeus, the woman who anointed Jesus, the naked youth, Judas Iscariot, Barabbas, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea. Mark’s account of Jesus’ death resembles the violent death and burial of Hector, whose god had abandoned him. Mark’s authorial voice is different from that of Q/Q+ in large measure because he imitated or, better, emulated Homeric epic.
For perspective, an interesting disagreement with MacDonald can be read in the Open Access collection of academic essays,
Christian Origins and the New Testament in the Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. Kay Higuera Smith argues in "Mark and Homer" that while she agrees with MacDonald that Homeric style influenced Mark:
I will challenge MacDonald on this assertion and argue that indirect influence is a much more plausible contention.
My point is that the genre of Mark has not been fixed.
Your point is noted but irrelevant. I wasn’t arguing the genre of Gospels is
fixed. The argument, with supporting quote from Ehrman, is that it is a widely held position among scholars that the Gospels are a type of ancient biography. MacDonald’s theory argues against that more widely held position. MacDonald acknowledges this himself...
"...the earliest evangelist was not writing a historical biography, as many interpreters suppose, but a novel, a prose anti-epic of sorts" – Dennis MacDonald,
The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, 2000, pg. 7.
It’s insufficient to appeal to MacDonald as a means to dislodge Mark from the more widely held position that the Gospels are a type of ancient biography. Or are we arguing from minority positions among scholars now? Besides MacDonald’s theory doesn’t really challenge the genre of biography as much as it attempts to challenge the notion Mark’s Gospel is
intended to be grounded in historical facts.That instead of facts the Gospel of Mark is essentially grounded in the Greek mythology of Homer.
These parallel type arguments tend to be highly problematic. They typically use vague and broad inevitable elements as evidence of imitation. Take for instance the above reference to a sea voyage. If one operates near a body of water, as Jesus did, it seems almost inevitable that at some point one will travel by boat. More often than not, when one reads the original source it is alleged the Gospels borrowed from alongside the Gospels the alleged parallels don’t seem so clear as they are initially made out to be. The stark differences are either ignored entirely or conveniently explained as intentional thereby effectively insulating the theory from falsification. If Mark did imitate Homer why did he leave out so many of the more obvious and thematic elements? Why, for instance, is Jesus not portrayed as trying to return home to his wife, a key thematic element of the
Odyssey? Why did Mark instead focus on such obscure parallels? If Mark did imitate Homer he did a horrible job.
Since liamconnor argues (without other apparent argument) that it's implausible that Mark would have consulted no witnesses, I pointed out a genre of which some scholars see at least unconscious imitation and which wouldn't create an expectation of eyewitnesses
But this doesn’t work as a counter argument since it doesn’t account for the entire contents of Mark’s Gospel. Even if we grant the Homeric imitation type arguments we are still left to answer the question of where did Mark get his information regarding other events not paralleled in Homer such as the crucifixion of Jesus.
Further, it does not follow from the use of imitation itself there would be no expectation of consultation with witnesses. The presence of Homeric imitation can also be argued is present in the works of other secular historians such as Herodotus. It can also be argued Tacitus engaged in mimesis in his historical writings as well. Does that likewise, then, make those works a genre which wouldn't create an expectation of eyewitnesses?
I'm not saying that necessarily is what happened, but there is at least enough uncertainty that one can't convincingly argue, as liamconnor did, that we should assume of course that Mark interviewed eyewitnesses.
It’s not merely an assumption. It can be inferred from other facts that Mark probably interviewed witnesses. The strength of that inference will, I think, depend on the evidence we look at. At this point all we have looked at, for the most part, is Gospel of Mark itself. Which, unlike the Gospel of Luke, internally makes no claim to have received information from witnesses. If we expand the scope of evidence to say the early church fathers we can build a strong historical case that the author of Mark received his information from witnesses.
Goose wrote:It wasn’t uncommon for ancient historians to create speeches and other minor details to fill in the blanks so to speak. But it doesn’t follow from this practise that the core of the story was “made up.�
Is the dead guy coming back to life part of a speech or "other minor detail?" If it is, I'll concede that part of the argument.
No, that would be the core of the resurrection narrative. How many angles were at tomb, for example, would be a minor or secondary detail.
Goose wrote:As for the Gospels being intended to record history Luke, in the opening of his Gospel, explicitly tells his audience that what he has recorded was meant to be taken as a factual account.
- �Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.�
In the
foreword to A Princess of Mars, Edgar Rice Burroughs presents the book itself as the work of the fictional main character, John Carter. Though undeniably an integral part of the fiction, it is presented as though it were a message to the reader that is independent of the story. Considering the number of
obviously fictional elements in Luke, I consider it reasonably likely that Luke used the same sort of rhetorical device as Burroughs.
Since you are arguing Luke and Burroughs used “the same sort of rhetorical device� where is the evidence that this sort of rhetorical device even existed in the first century let alone was widely practised? A device where a known fictional genre was explicitly asserted by the writer to be taken as history.
Further, this kind reasoning is highly problematic. What happens when we apply this same kind of reasoning to other ancient works which internally claim to have been intended as history yet also contain elements such as omens, apparitions, miracles, or some supernatural event? For instance, Tacitus tells in the opening of his
Histories that he was writing history...
�The history on which I am entering...� – (1.2.1)
Later Tacitus records in his
Histories not one but two healings performed by Vespasian where a blind man received site and a man with a crippled hand was healed (4.81). Then Vespasian has a supernatural vision of Basilides (4.82).
If we apply your reasoning here, you must also consider it reasonably likely that Tacitus was using a rhetorical device and did not actually mean for people to take his work as history. To argue otherwise will be to make a Special Plea for Tacitus.
Goose wrote:You are assuming it is the case Mark ended at 16:8.
Yes.
A debatable assumption. Surely we have enough uncertainty about where the Gospel Mark ended that you cannot simply assume
it is the case it ended at 16:8.
Goose wrote:You are also assuming Mark meant that the women at the tomb continued to tell no one. I don’t see the text necessarily implying that at 16:8. The Greek verbiage Mark employs at 16:8 leaves the door open to the expected and inevitable telling by the women.
Maybe explain what you mean. All I'm assuming is what Mark wrote, which is the women fled the tomb and "said nothing to nobody" because they were (and continued to be; imperfect past tense) scared. You're right that they could have later overcome their fear and told somebody later, but then what does 16:8 mean? Are you saying that Mark just neglected to finish the story?
But that’s not all that Mark wrote. Mark also explicitly has the young man at the tomb instructing the women to “go and tell� the disciples that Jesus will meet them in Galilee as promised. Are we to think Mark expected his readers to think this command was ignored altogether?
As for the Greek employed at 16:8 your argument doesn’t hold water if it’s meant to imply the women continued to be afraid as in, at no point stopped being afraid. The very same Greek word for ‘afraid’ is also used in the imperfect past at Mark 10:32 describing the disciples as they followed Jesus. Further, the “trembling� at Mark 16:8 was also held in the imperfect past tense as well. Are we to think, then, that Mark meant the women continued to tremble and a no point stopped trembling? Surely the trembling, along with the fear, would have eventually been overcome. The women would eventually come to their senses and follow the instruction of the young man at tomb which Mark implied was a divine messenger. Surely the desire to give the amazing news that Jesus had resurrected would be too difficult if not impossible for the women to contain once they had time to collect themselves.
But even if he did and intended us to think that the women told everybody, everywhere, the OP's argument is that it's implausible that the "people who knew Jesus simply sat at home ... never talking about their experiences." That's exactly what Mark told us happened, though. The women said nothing to anyone.
No that doesn’t follow. It doesn’t follow from the women saying nothing that everyone said nothing. At most, if you wish to continue down this strained line of argumentation, you can only argue that it was the
women who said nothing to anyone. That doesn’t imply at all that
everyone who knew Jesus said nothing. Besides, you already conceded earlier the implausibility of the idea that the people who knew Jesus sat at home never talking about their experiences when you answered the OP’s question this way...
“Of course not. They talked about it with all of the other people in Jerusalem. Until AD 70, anyway.�
So I don’t know why you are continuing to pursue this argument when you don’t seem to believe it yourself.
Goose wrote:This is an odd argument. Mark
explicitly states on several occasions that despite the warning from Jesus to not tell anyone of the miracle the healed person went and told anyway.
Maybe, if Mark was actually trying to recount history or trying to be consistent. Now that I read it that way, there are "crowds," so you can have crowds. I also notice (and didn't before) that Mark makes a big deal about two of the witnesses being from Decapolis. It's not relevant to this discussion, but it makes me curious.
Irrelevant. The point is that you cannot maintain this “Mark was making excuses for lack of witnesses� argument when Mark explicitly, on numerous occasions, says the miracles of Jesus were proclaimed so widely that Jesus could no longer enter a city.
Goose wrote:Mark expected his readers to think the women at the tomb told no one about Jesus’ resurrection when on numerous occasions in Mark’s Gospel the lesser miracles of Jesus are being reported so extensively that Jesus could no longer even enter a city? That seems very unlikely.
I disagree. I still think that Mark's audience is a small, gnostic-like group. Even if the crowds proclaimed the miracles, the disciples were told to tell no one and
they, at least, kept the secret.
Where are you getting this idea the disciples kept the secret? What evidence is there they kept the secret? Don’t forget the disciples were sent by Jesus on missionary journeys where they preached, cast out demons, and healed the sick (Mark 6:7-13). Were they keeping the secret then too?
Verse 9:9 says that they were to "tell no one" until Jesus had "risen from the dead." I hadn't thought of it this way, but if the women didn't tell the disciples and the disciples therefore didn't go to Galilee, none of them knew that Jesus had risen. We're back to a small, chosen group that were lucky enough to hear Mark's story.
Mark 9:9 is in context to the transfiguration. The disciples weren’t to speak of the transfiguration until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
Goose wrote:What people are those making up the stories though? Paul’s letters themselves refer to Jesus’ resurrection and divine status. So the resurrection story must at least predate Paul or have originated with Paul. And we know from Paul’s own letters he had contact with the disciples. So it would seem either Paul was making up a resurrection story or the disciples were if in fact resurrection stories were being made up. The question not clearly answered here is why would they do that?
I'm not claiming that no Jesus traditions whatsoever predated the Gospels. Let's say that the James, John, and Cephas that Paul met played the same roles in the actual life of Jesus that the Gospels say they did. That's not a foregone conclusion, but I'll grant it for the sake of this particular argument. Let's also say that Paul knew every single detail about the real life of the real Jesus. As far as his epistles are concerned, the Jesus story began when He was crucified. Whether he didn't know or didn't care, the fact is that he didn't talk about it. I see no reason to think that Paul was any more vocal about the pre-resurrection Jesus in person than he was in his letters.
But if you are going to assume all this then there’s no reason to think people would be so hungry for information about Jesus that they would just make up stories as you implied earlier. Those people could simply go to the disciples (or wait for the disciples to come to them) to get that information.
As for Paul’s letters. His letters were addressed to believers and primarily dealt with issues in the church. No reason to expect Paul to go into the details of Jesus’ life when he wasn’t writing biographies.
Goose wrote:That’s not particularly meaningful to simply argue from
plausibility. No one is denying that fabrications are
plausible.
On the contrary, I'm pretty sure that was exactly the point of the OP and what I was responding to. If you're right and that's not what the OP meant, then I agree with you.
Okay that’s my mistake. I should have said, no one is denying that fabrications are
possible.
Goose wrote:I could similarly counter argue the simple fact numerous details in the Gospels have been confirmed by archaeology and other historical sources mean that it’s
plausible the Gospels include no fabrications.
Did you mean that to be a
non sequitur? No matter how many commemorative Quirinius plaques they find, a Roman census based on where one's great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather lived will never be plausible.
Yes I meant it to be a non-sequitur just like your argument was a non-sequitur: Protevangelium of James -> Gospels include fabrications.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." -- Albert Einstein -- Written in 1954 to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind.
