Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Really enjoying myself, as an ignorant bystander who wasn't even aware he had any interest in the subject up until now.

I love these kind of discussions too but am so completely up the bloody walls at the moment that I only get to skim the recent posts at a time of night when I am also completely brain dead... like right now for example.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

am also completely brain dead...

Welcome to my world.

roosh

Just watched this documentary. Jesus was a Buddhist monk. A large part of it discusses the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection, which echoes what people have been saying about no first hand accounts of Jesus. I was just wondering about the latter claims about the possibility that someone, who could potentially have been Jesus, came from Israel and settled in Kashmir - just wondering if anyone knows about those claims?

I'll be looking into it myself, was just wondering if anyone else has already done it which might save me some time.

EDIT: I know the claims by Nicolas Notovitch have been discredited but there are claims about Kashmiri history as well, which I'm not sure about.

Red Nissan

roosh wrote: »

Just watched this documentary. Jesus was a Buddhist monk.

For those on slow connections: This is faster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxwqAYSsKjY

kelly1

ok, I just read up to page 19.

Very interesting and informative I must say.

Re the comment from Bannasidhe, "Yet, the vast majority of the (all secondary) sources on him stem from his own camp, as it were, so must be viewed as hagiographies " in post #201, my only comment on this is that there is embarrassment factor in the New Testament to consider.

e.g. the reporting of the empty tomb by women witnesses, when women in ancient Jewish society were considered to be unreliable witnesses.

Then, it was evident from the text that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant by rising after 3 days, so when it did happen, they were taken by surprise. I'm sure they thought they had backed the wrong horse when their master was crucified like a common criminal.

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.

[Oh, last comment was from 2014. Sorry for resurrecting this thread ]

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

Re the comment from Bannasidhe, "Yet, the vast majority of the (all secondary) sources on him stem from his own camp, as it were, so must be viewed as hagiographies " in post #201, my only comment on this is that there is embarrassment factor in the New Testament to consider.

e.g. the reporting of the empty tomb by women witnesses, when women in ancient Jewish society were considered to be unreliable witnesses.

The criterion of embarrassment or dissimilarity as it is better known in academia is a fairly limited tool.
Firstly it's only real purpose is confirmatory. It can be used to show that something not in the vested interest of the author is more likely to be true. It can't be used to falsify a hypothesis. You can't show that because something is in the vested interest of an author that it is likely not true. So it's got limited utility.
Secondly, dissimilarity only looks at whether or not the passage would be in the author's interest to claim from a theological standpoint. It doesn't consider other reasons why it may be included. For example in his lecture series on The Historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman lists seven examples of what he considers classic examples of dissimilarity. One of them is the betrayal of Judas. If Jesus was really the Son of God and the author of the gospel believed that then why have him betrayed by Judas. Why would Jesus keep a disciple who he had to have known would betray him. So it must be true. Except we have very good reasons why the Judas betrayal story is there and why Judas is a fictional character, an invention of Mark for use as a plot device. I've explained this in more detail on the naturalism thread here.
Also, if the women were the first witnesses to the empty tomb and women were unreliable witnesses such that it makes the story more likely to be true then why doesn't Paul mention them. Paul is writing 20 years earlier than any of the gospel writers and yet makes no mention of the women, a story which if true, would have been one of the most prominent stories about Jesus.
Finally, it's very likely, as I'll explain in the next section that the appearance of the women at the tomb (not the fact that they're women but the entire empty tomb narrative) is really just a plot device of Mark's designed as the final revelation of the nature of Jesus.

kelly1 wrote: »

Then, it was evident from the text that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus meant by rising after 3 days, so when it did happen, they were taken by surprise. I'm sure they thought they had backed the wrong horse when their master was crucified like a common criminal.

But misunderstanding is one of the major themes of Mark's gospel, you could even argue that misunderstanding is the entire point of Mark's gospel. I have spelled this out before but Mark's gospel borrows heavily from the Homeric epics in content, structure and tone. It is a "hidden hero" story like the tale of Odysseus. The degree to which The Odyssey influences Mark's gospel is extensive and could fill a thread all by itself so I'll be brief.
One example of a scene borrowed from The Odyssey is found in Mark 14:

" While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

Now the parallel story in The Odyssey is too long to quote verbatim here so I'll just give the synopsis. The Odyssey concerns Odysseus' adventures as he returns home to Ithaca after the fall of Troy. It takes Odysseus ten years to get home because he is constantly waylaid by a series of incredible adventures (think Star Trek Voyager). Eventually Odysseus returns home but since 10 years have elapsed the people in Ithaca think he is dead. He gets back to his house to find a number of men acting as suitors to his wife Penelope. Rather than confront the many suitors he decides to covertly get the lowdown on the situation. He disguises himself as a beggar and wanders into the house. His wife Penelope doesn't recognise him but bids Eurycleia his wet-nurse to attend to the beggar. Eurycleia begins washing Odysseus' feet when she notices a scar which he acquired in his youth. She then recognises him as her master Odysseus. He then commands her to be silent and not tell Penelope or anyone else in the house. This is so that his disguise can be preserved until the right moment and give the reader a sense of dramatic irony.

When we compare the two stories as well as the rest of Mark's gospel we see the influence of one on the other.
Firstly, the woman recognises who Jesus really is when his own disciples do not (which is why she anoints him for what is coming down the track), just like Eurycleia recognises Odysseus when nobody else does.
Secondly, although not featured in Mark 14, the whole way through Mark's gospel Jesus repeatedly shuts people and demons up when they attempt to tell everyone who he really is. For example:

" Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!”
1:23-25

"And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was."
1:34

" Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. And He sternly warned him and immediately sent him away, and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone;"
1:42-44

"Whenever the unclean spirits saw Him, they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God!” And He earnestly warned them not to tell who He was."
3:11-12

"Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded. And He gave them strict orders that no one should know about this, and He said that something should be given her to eat."
5:42-43

It is the guest stars in the story who recognise Jesus, the minor characters, the woman who anoints Jesus, the demons, the centurion at the cross. The principal characters don't understand who Jesus is and Mark wants to preserve this sense of dramatic irony to the very end. So everyone close to Jesus is shown not to get him. His family don't understand him (3:5), his neighbours don't understand him (6:3), his own disciples don't even understand him. Even the Pharisees, those most schooled in religion don't understand who Jesus really is and constantly try to lecture him. It's only the outsiders who know so that the denouement in 16:8 has that much more impact. When the women go to the tomb they find just a young man who tells them that Jesus is gone and they run away in fear. What has happened to Jesus is left as an exercise to the reader but with all the examples of healing and exorcism throughout the Gospel the reader is left with very little doubt as to what really happened. It is a very carefully constructed novel with a cliffhanger ending.

kelly1 wrote: »

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.

They didn't paint anything. We have no writings from any of the apostles. I've mentioned this on the naturalism thread but out of 27 books in the New Testament we only know who wrote 7 of them (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and Philemon). Everything else was either anonymous or written by someone pretending to be who they're not like a fake celebrity twitter account.
For example Peter is supposed to be the author of 2 epistles in the New Testament. However, there are several reasons why Peter didn't write any epistles.
Firstly, there is evidence from the Bible itself. Acts 4:13, for example describes Peter (and John for that matter) as illiterate. Even in 2 Peter itself, its should be apparent that this was not written by Peter. 2 Peter 3:3-4 talks about people mocking Christians for the apparent failure of Jesus' prophetic claim in Matthew 24:34. If this was written by Peter before his death, say sometime around 60CE, then there wouldn't be much of a reason, yet, to mock Jesus' prophecy. However, the mocking makes more sense when you consider the work as pseudepigraphal with a composition date (according to scholarly majority) of 100-150CE.
Secondly, 2 Peter quotes and borrows heavily from Jude. This creates two problems. Firstly, someone so ostensibly close to Jesus shouldn't need to borrow from another writer to tell his story. Secondly, even conservative scholars date the composition of Jude to between 66 and 90 CE, a time when Peter would already be dead. Other more objective scholars place Jude's composition somewhere between 90 and 125CE.
Thirdly, there are several other lesser indicators that this work was not written by Peter. It is written in a very cultured Greek style, something not becoming of a fisherman. It makes references to the Hebrew Bible but only to the Septuagint, something Peter would be unlikely to have used. It contains very little personal anecdotes to connect the author with Jesus, an aberration for a book claimed to be written by Jesus' most trusted confidant. Peter makes reference to Rome as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13, something that Christians only began to use after the publication of Revelations around 90CE.
The gospels were written by people who never even knew the disciples personally. Mark's gospel was written by someone probably in Rome who had never set foot in Palestine. Matthew's account is unlikely to be personal since it borrows the vast majority of its text from Mark, by someone living in Syria. Luke borrows heavily from Mark just as Matthew did but also from Josephus. John's work is a pastiche written by several authors with no evidence that any of them actually was John.


EDIT: There's one other parallel between the anointing story in Mark 14 and The Odyssey that I forgot to mention. At the end of the anointing story Jesus remarks that wherever in the world the gospel is preached the woman who anointed him would be remembered for her actions thus earning her worldwide fame. Well, remember who it was anointed Odysseus in the parallel story, his nursemaid Eurycleia. The name Eurycleia means "widespread fame". Just like in other stories Mark can't resist giving a little nudge nudge wink wink moment to his readers to show where his story comes from.

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But misunderstanding is one of the major themes of Mark's gospel, you could even argue that misunderstanding is the entire point of Mark's gospel. I have spelled this out before but Mark's gospel borrows heavily from the Homeric epics in content, structure and tone. It is a "hidden hero" story like the tale of Odysseus. The degree to which The Odyssey influences Mark's gospel is extensive and could fill a thread all by itself so I'll be brief.
One example of a scene borrowed from The Odyssey is found in Mark 14:

" While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me. She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial. Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.”

Now the parallel story in The Odyssey is too long to quote verbatim here so I'll just give the synopsis. The Odyssey concerns Odysseus' adventures as he returns home to Ithaca after the fall of Troy. It takes Odysseus ten years to get home because he is constantly waylaid by a series of incredible adventures (think Star Trek Voyager). Eventually Odysseus returns home but since 10 years have elapsed the people in Ithaca think he is dead. He gets back to his house to find a number of men acting as suitors to his wife Penelope. Rather than confront the many suitors he decides to covertly get the lowdown on the situation. He disguises himself as a beggar and wanders into the house. His wife Penelope doesn't recognise him but bids Eurycleia his wet-nurse to attend to the beggar. Eurycleia begins washing Odysseus' feet when she notices a scar which he acquired in his youth. She then recognises him as her master Odysseus. He then commands her to be silent and not tell Penelope or anyone else in the house. This is so that his disguise can be preserved until the right moment and give the reader a sense of dramatic irony.

When we compare the two stories as well as the rest of Mark's gospel we see the influence of one on the other.

No, I think you need to have your head in the trees to see any influence of one on the other.

The two stories are entirely different in every respect except that they both refer to the common ancient practice of foot washing (albeit in drastically different contexts).

The mental stretching it takes to argue that they are related is so bizarre that I actually laughed out loud.

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I think you need to have your head in the trees to see any influence of one on the other.

The two stories are entirely different in every respect except that they both refer to the common ancient practice of foot washing (albeit in drastically different contexts).

The mental stretching it takes to argue that they are related is so bizarre that I actually laughed out loud.

As I pointed out in my previous post this is a long and complex topic of which the Eurycleia story is but one example. There are many parallels between The Odyssey and the Gospel of Mark. However, the principal influence of Homer on Mark's writing is in its structure. Mark is a hero biography, a tale of the exploits and adventures of its central character. This literary form is common across almost all cultures with notable examples such as The Odyssey, The Mahabharata, Beowulf, The Epic of Gilgamesh, Paradise Lost, The Divine Comedy or even our own Táin Bó Cúailng. The stories in Mark are borrowed from Greek myth and literature as well as the Septuagint but there the basic literary structure belongs to Homer. However, Mark isn't shy about this and offers a degree of fan-service to his readers who would have been Greek speaking converts (more on that later) by dropping in references to his source material.

I'm going to outline the thesis in more detail below with more examples to reinforce the original point. The central premise of the thesis is that Mark isn't an eyewitness account or even trying to be an eyewitness account. It is a deliberate work of fiction which tries to flesh out the character of Jesus by providing a backstory. This novel relies heavily on Homer in structure and content as well as borrowing from other sources. This is what I will show.


1. The real Mark

The first thing we need to establish is the information we are able to glean about the real Mark (well, whatever his name might have been) from the text of his gospel. The gospel is anonymous both internally and externally. The traditional attribution of the gospel to John Mark, an attendant of Peter is based on an attribution by Irenaeus which in turn is based on a letter by Papias which is no longer extant and is only fragmentarily preserved in the writings of Eusebius. However, even this fragment is doubtful. In Ecclesiastical History Vol. 3 39:15-16, Eusebius notes that Matthew is a collection of Jesus' sayings in Aramaic while Mark was an unchronological recording of the teachings of Peter. However, Matthew was not written in Aramaic but Greek (and bears no evidence of being a translated work) and is not just a sayings gospel (like Thomas) but has an extensive narrative structure (albeit mostly borrowed from Mark). Mark on the other hand is not an unchronological collection of teachings but a very ordered narrative. Consequently, the very basis of traditional attribution is highly doubtful and has been almost universally abandoned by scholars.
So, if the traditional attributions are wrong, what can we know about the author of Mark?

1a. He was well-educated
The story in Mark's gospel is written in Koine Greek. Furthermore it is a complex narrative told from the perspective of an omniscient (e.g. Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane) 3rd person narrator. It employs sophisticated literary techniques like:

• dramatic irony (the reader is aware of who Jesus is long before any of the main characters)
• a cliffhanger ending (the original text ends at 16:8 before there is any confirmed resurrection)
• intercalation (a technique where a separate story is sandwiched in the middle of another story, often as a means to impart a theological message, e.g. Mark 2:1-12)
• foreshadowing (references to events which will happen after the story concludes, e.g. the "I will make you fish for people" reference in Mark 1:16-20 which references the apostles preaching after Jesus' death)
• suspense building (Mark often repeats a certain story element three times, increasing it's impact each time to heighten the drama of the story, e.g. in Mark 1:10-11, there are three reactions to Jesus' baptism, the heavens open, a spirit descends and a voice is heard. This is mirrored by three reactions to Jesus death in Mark 15:38-40, those of the centurion, the women and the ripping of the temple curtain)
• Parataxis (the idea of stringing together vignettes or otherwise only loosely connected stories into a themed group, e.g. there are five stories involving some kind of controversy or opponent of Jesus given together between 2:1 and 3:6. Also Mark tends to use the word "and" a lot to string everything together like a five year old with too much sugar. Two-thirds of the verses in the original greek text begin with "and")
• In medias res (opening your story in the middle of ongoing events. Unlike Matthew, Mark's story cold opens with the preaching of John the Baptist rather than beginning with a nativity. The Odyssey begins similarly by starting with Odysseus' journey home and only later recounting the events which lead up to the story's opening).

Now the fact that Mark could write at all was a wonder in itself. As William Harris points out in Ancient Literacy:

"The likely overall illiteracy of the Roman Empire under the principate is almost certain to have been above 90%"


In this region, at that time, only about 10% of people would have been educated enough to read. To write, those people would have been educated further still and to write a complex narrative of the type found in the gospel would have required advanced training. This training would have been much like the Junior and Leaving Cert cycle English programmes are today, with much emphasis on classic works and homework on comprehension and essay writing. So in the same way that a student now would practice their English by studying, reading and writing about Shakespeare, a student then would have done the same with Homer. So someone who is able to write the type of story found in Mark's gospel would have been intimately familiar with the works of Homer.

1b. He was from Rome
Being well educated would also require that Mark was from a wealthy background and as is generally true today, there was at that time an uneven distribution of wealth such that those in urban centres were more likely to come from wealthy backgrounds than those from rural areas. Now given the fact that any eyewitnesses would have to have originated from modern day Palestine, we know that this wasn't the case with Mark.
Firstly, Mark knows very little about the country he is writing about, both its customs and geography. In Mark 7:31 Mark describes Jesus leaving Tyre and going through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. This is similar to someone going from Galway through Mayo to Tipperary. Also in Mark 7:10, Mark references the Ten Commandments as the Laws of Moses. Matthew corrects mark on this, changing the passage in Matthew 15:4 to show that the commandments come from God.
Secondly, the language that Mark employs also indicates that he is not from Palestine. He employs very scant references to Aramaic and they are almost always limited to words or short phrases (e.g. 3:17, 5:41, 7:11, 15:22, 15:34). He also translates these phrases for his readers indicating that he is writing for a Greek speaking audience who would have no knowledge of Aramaic. Coupled with this is the fact that Mark makes use of a number of Latin loanwords in his gospel (e.g. 4:21, 5:9, 6:37, 12:42, 15:39). In fact out of 18 Latin loanwords across the New Testament, 10 of them are found in Mark. Mark also contains phrases that are influenced by Latin (e.g. 3:6, 5:23, 11:32, 14:65).

So, in conclusion, we can say that Mark was probably from a wealthy, urban background, probably in Rome who was highly educated and a Gentile convert. What does this mean for the overall thesis? Well, as demonstrated above, the education that Mark would have received in writing to the point that he is capable of such a complex story would have required an in-depth study of Greek classics like Homer including mimesis (writing stories which copy the basic idea but change the little details, like improv).


2. Mark's Jesus and Genre

As I've pointed out before, Mark (or the other gospels for that matter) don't read as histories. There are many reasons for this but the principal ones are:

1. The gospels make little or no attempt to identify the sources they draw upon in writing their stories. (e.g. Luke mentions that he draws on sources but does not name them)
2. The later gospel authors make no attempt to resolve contradictions with earlier works (e.g. Luke makes no attempt to reconcile his nativity narrative with Matthew's)
3. The author does not place himself in the story.
4. The gospels are written for the common man rather than the social and literary elite audience of Greek and Roman histories/biographies.
5. The gospels contain far too many hagiographical elements to be historically reliable.
6. There is no attempt to warn the reader that certain events or words may not be recorded clearly. None of the gospel authors make any attempt to identify where they speculate on content.
7. The interdependence of the gospels makes them unlike the historical writings of the time.
8. Unusual events disappear from the wider narrative. The aftermath of the graves opening in Matthew is not discussed in any other text.

However, dispensing with the notion of the gospels as historical accounts raises the question, what are the gospels supposed to be?



Well, they're certainly not biographies of Jesus. In "The Development of Greek Biography" Arnaldo Momigliano depicts ancient biography as a very diverse genre. However, there is one element which remains constant and is considered the minimum requirement for establishing a work as a biography namely "An account of the life of a man from birth to death". As discussed above, since Mark employs the technique of in medias res, it's clear that Mark is not a biography, at least not one that would have been recognised as such by people at the time.


Some scholars such as Pheme Perkins have argued that Mark's gospel is a laudatory biography similar to Philo of Alexandria's "On the life of Moses". However, Mark's gospel structured as it is without a story element of Jesus' birth and early life and being concentrated solely on a single year in his life, doesn't align terribly well with this laudatory biography structure.



However, the gospel of Mark as it turns out aligns very well with the ancient novel in general and with The Odyssey in particular. The parallels between the stories exist not only in story elements (as with the Eurycleia story previously) but also with recurring themes and motifs which are spread throughout the gospel. I will detail both types of parallel below as well as showing that the use of Homer by Mark aligns well with the on trend technique of the day, Dynosian Imitatio.

There is one final reason why Mark's gospel aligns with the ancient novel rather than a history or biography: dialogue. There is a startling amount of direct speech in Mark's gospel. This is odd for two reasons. Firstly, as we've already covered Mark is writing 2000km and 40 years from the events he describes. So, how is he able to record conversations so accurately. In particular how is he able to record some conversations at all. For example, in Mark 14:36 Jesus is quoted as saying:



“Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

Who exactly recorded this conversation? The apostles are asleep and out of earshot. There's no witness to this event other than the omniscient narrator of the gospel.


Secondly, the level of direct speech in Mark pretty much rules out this being a historical account. Histories of the day refrained from direct speech because it was problematic. The levels of direct speech in contemporary historical accounts is very low (Josephus’ Jewish War I: 8.8%, Plutarch’s Alexander: 12.1%; Tacitus’ Agricola: 11.5%). Mark, however is composed of 46% direct speech. This aligns well with other fictional novels of the day (Judith 50%, Susanna 46%). So it's much more likely that Mark was writing a deliberate work of fiction than a historical account.



3. Jesus and the silence of history


One of the major objections to a thesis like this is why there is a need to borrow material from other sources when talking about Jesus' life at all. Surely the details of the life of someone so famous would have been well known. You'd think so, but no. There is a major disconnect between the claims of the gospels and the evidence of history.
In the gospels we are repeatedly told of the fame of Jesus. In Mark 1:28, we are told that word of Jesus' exploits spread all through the district of Galilee. In Matthew 4:25 and Luke 12:1 we are told that large crowds followed Jesus and that many thousands of people gathered to hear him speak. In John 12:11 the chief priests express frustration at Jesus on account of how many people he was converting. He comes to the attention of both the chief priests and the rulers of the day (Matthew 14:1). His death is accompanied by seemingly indisputable cataclysmic events, a worldwide darkness for three hours (Mark 15:33), a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51) and of course a zombie uprising (Matthew 27:52-53). How could anyone at that time be ignorant of the details of Jesus' life? However, that's exactly what we find. Some of the people whose interests are focused either geographically or thematically on the subject of 1st century Palestine make no mention of Jesus.
For example Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew who lived from 20BCE to 50CE. In his writings we find references to Jewish offshoot sects such as the Essenes and Therapeutae but no mention of the Jesus sect. He wrote about Pontius Pilate and was living in Jerusalem around the time Jesus was supposedly killed but makes no mention of him. Here's a man who at least to some extent shared religious opinions with Christianity, was living in the region, at the time and yet makes no mention of such a famous character. Odd.
Then you have Justus of Tiberias. A historian and rival of Josephus, Justus composed several histories of the region around 80CE. Little is known of Justus' life apart from what is preserved in Jospehus' writings. However, Photius, the 9th century patriarch of Constantinople references some of Justus' work in his book Bibliotheke (a review of 279 books he had read). In particular, Photius notes that Justus makes no mention of Jesus's life.
Then there's Pliny The Elder who wrote a monumental 37 volume tome "Natural History" which mentions a myriad of scientific and natural phenomena but makes no mention of the cataclysmic events which surrounded Jesus' death.
Then there's Seneca the Younger (1BCE - 65CE) who wrote a series of letters and essays about moral teachings and ethics and yet makes no mention of Jesus' supposedly radical and humane teachings.
There are no contempraneous sources for Jesus. The earliest biblical source is Paul writing 20 years after Jesus' death and contains almost no biographical information (we are told Jesus was born of a woman and was crucified but that's about it). The other extrabiblical sources which mention Jesus or Christians are all younger than the gospels (Jospehus 93CE, Suetonius 120CE, Tacitus 115CE, Pliny the Younger 112CE).
So how does someone like Mark writing 40 years after Jesus death in a city 2000km away from where the events happened have access to such extensive biographical information when other writers (e.g. Paul) writing temporally and geographically closer to the events don't. The answer is, he didn't. Mark like early converts wouldn't have had any details on Jesus. He probably had Paul's letters and heard whispers of Jesus' life but that's about it. So where did he get such a detailed story? From literature.


4. Mark and Homer - Structural parallels

As I noted above, there are two kinds of Homeric parallels in Mark, recurring themes and motifs which pervade the story and specific borrowings where a particular event in Jesus' adventures is lifted directly from an earlier source. The first type of parallel is borrowed exclusively from Homer with particular focus on The Odyssey. The second type of parallel has multiple sources, Mark borrows stories from The Odyssey, The Iliad, Greek mythology and the Septuagint in building his narrative. However, The Odyssey, given its influence on the overall story structure gets used more often than most other sources.

The first type of parallel, that of recurring themes and motifs is shorter and more obvious than the next section.

4a - The Jesus boat
One of the most prominent recurring parallels between Mark and The Odyssey is Mark's use of the Sea of Galilee and boats in his story. The Odyssey is structured as Odysseus' return by sea to Ithaca following the Trojan war and the adventures that befall the crew on their way home. Mark uses this backbone to introduce or connect stories in his gospel. Jesus is referenced as using boats in 1:19-20, 3:9, 4:1, 4:36, 5:2, 5:18-21, 6:32, 6:45-51, 8:10.
In one story in Mark 4 Jesus calms a storm which rises up on the Sea of Galilee and threatens to sink the boat. This is a boat which happily contains 12 disciples and a sleeping Jesus. From excavations it's likely that this boat was approximately 27 feet long, 8 feet wide and 4 feet high giving it a total displacement of roughly 4 tons. Now the Sea of Galilee is actually a freshwater lake, somewhere between Lough Derg and Lough Corrib in size. So how come a storm builds up so quickly (to the point that Jesus is asleep right up to the point that the boat is in imminent danger) that it risks sinking a boat that big on a lake that small?

4b - Jesus' motley crew
Another prominent feature of Mark's gospel is the fairly pitiful characters that are the apostles. Several times they appear to be more of a hindrance to Jesus than a help. They all fall asleep when they're not supposed to in Mark 14, they are panicked by the storm in Mark 4, they all evidently flee when Jesus is arrested since none of the disciples apart from Peter is mentioned again in the story. The characterisation of the disciples in Mark is odd since they are only depicted as timid men lacking in understanding. It is only in later gospels that you begin to get the change into bold characters proudly proclaiming the gospel. It's an odd characterisation also because tradition ascribes the gospel to an attendant of Peter who gets some pretty bad press in Mark. It does however mirror the depiction of Odysseus' companions very well.

4c - Other parallels
There are other parallels too which recur through the gospel albeit with lesser prominence than those described already. Both Jesus and Odysseus face supernatural opposition. Both Jesus and Odysseus have to contend with rivals who are squandering their legacy (the suitors in the Odyssey are eating into Odysseus' wealth, the Pharisees in the gospel have distorted God's message to humanity). In both stories there is a foreshadowing of the trials that will be faced by the protagonist (in the Odyssey, Calypso warns Odysseus of what lies ahead, in Mark 8:31 Jesus warns his disciples of the dangers ahead). Both travel to the land of the dead and return again.


5 - Story parallels

Now to the specific parallels. There are several things to note here before we get to any of the examples. Firstly, as I've already pointed out the Odyssey isn't the only source that Mark borrows from. He also borrows extensively from the Septuagint setting Jesus up as the successor to the prophets of the Old Testament. He also borrows story elements from Greek myth. Secondly, the Odyssey is responsible for the how and not the what. Mark is promoting a theological message like all the gospels, a Pauline type Christianity. So very often Paul's letters form the basis of what Mark wants to say. However, the Odyssey forms the basis of how Mark frames that message and how it is delivered to the reader. Finally, because a parallel exists doesn't necessarily mean that it was intended. For example, in "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh of Homer" Irwin and Lombardo point out that sometimes there are accidental associations not intended as allusion. They cite one such example where Marge's short lived career as a real estate agent mirrors that of Annette Benning's character in American Beauty. This is an accidental association since the Simpsons episode aired two years before American Beauty. Therefore, we need to establish some criteria for identifying an allusion rather than an accidental association. The criteria for this purpose are as follows:

1. They are numerous (there are multiple examples of parallel stories rather than just one or two)
2. Commonality (for any given examples there are multiple points where the stories overlap)
3. Oddities (there are features of the gospel story which are unusual or jarring when reading the story cold)
4. Explanatory power (the parallel explains more than a plain reading of the text does)

5a - Polyphemus and the demon-possessed man
At the beginning of chapter 5 of Mark, we see the story of a man possessed by demons in the land of the Gerasenes. Jesus gets out of the boat alone and interacts with the man. He engages with the demons and asks them their name. They reply that their name is Legion (for we are many). Jesus then casts out the demons who enter a herd of pigs and flee into the sea.

In the Odyssey Book 9 we see the story of the cyclops Polyphemus son of Poseidon. Odysseus and his men alight by a cave near the sea and feed on Polyphemus food and wine. Polyphemus returns and kills several of Odysseus' men and then questions Odysseus. He asks him his name to which Odysseus responds "nobody". Later Odysseus attacks Polyphemus who calls out for help saying that nobody is attacking him and thus no one comes to his aid. Finally, Odysseus and his men make their escape by clinging to the underside of Polyphemus' flock of sheep.


There are multiple points of commonality:

• The stories open with a boat landing on the shore near a cave
• There is a challenge of identification (Jesus of the demons, Polyphemus of Odysseus)
• The response to the challenge is a play on words (nobody, legion)
• There is an escape in a pack of animals

Both stories feature a unique element, the escape on a pack of animals.



Then there's the point of the story. Mark's portrayal of Jesus is contrasted with that of Odysseus in the Odyssey. Mark uses the parallels to invoke the memory of the Odysseus story in his audience's mind. He then changes certain story elements to elevate the character of Jesus above that of Odysseus. Unlike Odysseus, Jesus faces the danger of the demoniac alone. Jesus takes on a multitude of demons rather than a single cyclops. At the conclusion of the story Jesus is humble about his identity and credits God as opposed to Odysseus' prideful taunting of Polyphemus.



5b - Priam and Joseph
I'm including this example because in some ways it is the exception that proves the rule. All of the other Homeric borrowings come from the Odyssey since Jesus is portrayed as Odysseus+. However, the death and resurrection of Jesus is a problem. Although Odysseus does visit the land of the dead, there is no actual death and burial in the Odyssey. So, instead Mark shifts gears and borrows a story from the Iliad instead. In Mark 15:42-16:2 we see the story of Joseph of Arimathea asking for the body of Jesus in order to bury him. In Book 24 of the Iliad Priam asks Achilles for the body of his son Hector. Again we see multiple points of commonality:

• Both stories open at night
• The task of asking for the body is described as daring
• The custodian of the body (Pilate, Achilles) is amazed at the request.
• The first witness after burial is a woman (Cassandra, Mary)
• A group of three women come to visit the body (Andromache, Hecuba, Helen; Mary, Mary and Salome)
• The conclusion of the story takes place at dawn (Hector's body is burned, the empty tomb is discovered)

So what's the point of the empty tomb story? Is it recounting a real historical fact or is it a literary invention. Well several facts feed into this idea. Firstly, the empty tomb is not mentioned in any other source before Mark. Secondly as JD Crossan in "The Passion of Mark" and Louis Ruprecht in "This Tragic Gospel" separately note, the other gospels derive their passion and empty tomb narratives from Mark. There is no independent corroboration of the empty tomb story. Also as Crossan points out, the empty tomb fits within Mark's redactional theology. Furthermore, when the theology and the literary perspectives are viewed together the empty tomb makes more sense. Mark's theology is inflluenced by Paul. Paul's letters speak repeatedly of Jesus' imminent return (albeit less imminent over time). So Mark needs a way of tying his backstory into the return of Jesus he's read about in Paul. What better way than a cliffhanger ending, having the women find an empty tomb and run away frightened with the ultimate fate of Jesus being left as an exercise for the reader?



5c - Aeolas and the storm
I've already mentioned the storm on the Sea of Galilee in Mark 4. This too has a parallel in The Odyssey. In Book 10 we see the story of Odysseus and Aeolas. Once again there are numerous parallels:

• The story opens with the crew boarding the ship
• The main character tells stories while afloat (Odysseus on a floating island, Jesus on a boat)
• Both stories involve a flotilla of boats
• The main character goes to sleep before the action kicks off
• A storm rises up quickly
• The crew complains
• The main character wakes up and settles the nerves of the crew
• The main character rebukes his crew (Odysseus for their greed, Jesus for their lack of faith)

Again there are unique features not otherwise explained by a plain reading, the sudden mention of a flotilla of boats without explanation why they were there, why Jesus is asleep as a storm kicks off. Once again, the use of Homer is a tool for Mark to impart a message the supernatural power of Jesus and the importance of faith.



5d - Eurycleia and the anonymous woman
We've covered this one already so I'll be brief. Like the others there are multiple points of commonality:

• There is an anointing
• Liquid is spilled (water in the Odyssey, nard in Mark)
• There is a recognition of the main character
• The story ends abruptly with a focus shift to a discussion of the main characters' enemies and unfaithful servants (the suitors & housemaids, the chief priests & Judas)

The story contains a unique parallel not otherwise explained by a plain reading, the fame that this anonymous woman will acquire in Mark vs. the etymology of Eurycleia in the Odyssey.

Once again this story serves as a signpost to the reader. It's intention is to stir the memory of the Odyssey story in the minds of the reader so that they know what's coming next.


5e - Other parallels
There are so many individual instances of parallel stories in Mark that it's not possible to go into all of them in any detail so I've included below a summary list so anyone can read the stories for themselves (using the links at the bottom) and see how many parallels there really are:

• Odysseus' entry into the city of the Phaecians (6.251 - 7.328; Mark 11:1-14)
• Why there are only male guests at the feeding of the five thousand (The Feast of Nestor 2.427 - 3.124; Mark 6:30-44)
• The naked young man in Gethsemane (The Death of Elpenor 10.552-574, Mark 14:50-52)
• The feeding of the four thousand (The Feast of Menelaus 4.1-144, Mark 8:1-9)
• Odysseus as a carpenter (5.1-255, Mark 6:1-6)
• The plot to kill Jesus (The suitor's plot to kill Telemachus 4.557-847, Mark 3:6)
• The sinful paralytic (Hephaestus 8.1-385, Mark 2:1-12)
• The foolish companions (9.62-107, Mark 8:13-21)
• The holy spirit descends on Jesus (The empowerment of Telemachus 1.11-324, Mark 1:9-11)
• The blind man at Bethsaida (Demodocus 8.454-555, Mark 8:22-26)
• The young man at the tomb (The burial of Elpenor 12.1-15, Mark 16:5-8)
• Peter's protest (Eurylochus 12.16-305, Mark 8:31-33)
• Peter's broken vow (12.333-419, Mark 14:32-41 & Mark 14:66-15:1)
• Jesus and the Syrophoenician woman (15.403-484, Mark 7:24-30)

I'm not sure you've grasped the scale of this parallel nor the scholarship allied against you. This isn't some tinfoil hat conspiracy but the result of serious scholarship by New Testament academics.


Conclusion

I must apologise that this post is very long and probably hard to follow and digest so I will try to summarise the overall thesis as best I can.

Firstly, the author of Mark's gospel is a well-educated, wealthy person writing around 70CE in Rome. They have very little knowledge of Palestinian geography, Jewish customs, Aramaic or the Hebrew bible. So the idea that they were an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness accounts is highly suspect.

Secondly, despite the claims of the gospel, there are no biographical sources for Jesus extant prior to Mark. Despite the fact that Paul could have interacted with Jesus' mother and all of his disciples he doesn't and he doesn't offer any biographical information. So Mark's sudden detailed biography is bizarre to say the least.
Finally, Mark from his education would have been deeply familiar with Homer having had to study it for both reading and writing. His story borrows individual epsiodes and recurring motifs from the Homeric epics as well as framing the entire story as an anti-Homeric archetype.
The closest modern day analog to Mark's gospel is this:




In Cryptonomicon, Neal Stephenson builds a carefully crafted story stretching from the codebreakers of World War 2 to the SE Asia tech boom of the 90s. It features a number of real verifiable historical figures (e.g. Alan Turing) but the story itself is entirely fictional.

You see, Nick, if my argument really were mental stretching then you could have clearly and concisely presented a counterargument backed up with supporting evidence. But you didn't. Instead you offered nothing but a feeble attempt to defend your mythology, a mocking condescension in a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" kind of way. I kinda expected a more cogent argument from a pastor. Pity.


Sources

The Odyssey
The Passion in Mark
Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative (Ronald Hock)
Ancient Fiction: The Matrix of Early Christian and Jewish Narrative (Jo-Ann Brant)
The Ancient Novel and Early Christian and Jewish Narrative: Fictional Intersections (Marilia Pinheiro)
Profit With Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Richard Pervo)
The Problem of Markan Genre: The Gospel of Mark and the Jewish Novel (Michael Vines)
What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Richard Burridge)
The Homeric Epics and the gospel of Mark (Dennis MacDonald)
Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre
Literary Features of the gospel of Mark

Nick Park

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You see, Nick, if my argument really were mental stretching then you could have clearly and concisely presented a counterargument backed up with supporting evidence. But you didn't. Instead you offered nothing but a feeble attempt to defend your mythology, a mocking condescension in a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" kind of way. I kinda expected a more cogent argument from a pastor. Pity.

I didn't make any attempt to defend anything. I pointed out the illogical nature of the claim you were making that two entirely dissimilar stories were somehow related. So maybe you should respond to that rather than imagining a lot of other stuff about my motives?

As for demanding clear and concise counterarguments - that's a bit like claiming "Green is the same colour as black" and then belittling someone for saying, "er, no they're not". The burden is on you to offer some evidence for why you claim two dissimilar events are related.

Now, let's examine your attempts at doing that:

There is an anointing

Yes, not that anointings were particularly rare in the ancient world. In fact, Mark's anointing isn't even specified as a foot washing in his Gospel. The ointment was poured on his head and body. It's other Gospel writers who specify it is a foot washing - even though Mark is the one who is supposed to be copying a foot washing. Funny that.

Liquid is spilled (water in the Odyssey, nard in Mark)

Er, how exactly do you think an anointing could occur without a liquid being used? Every anointing in history involved liquid being spilled.

Of course the liquids are completely different. In the one case its plain old water, in the other case it's a costly ointment. So that would be evidence of dissimilarity, not similarity.

There is a recognition of the main character

Actually, in Mark's Gospel there is no mention of any moment of recognition.

So that's another point of dissimilarity.

The story ends abruptly with a focus shift to a discussion of the main characters' enemies and unfaithful servants (the suitors & housemaids, the chief priests & Judas)

This is pretty vague. You're really trying very hard, and not succeeding very well, in forcing something into a preconceived scheme.

Here are some dissimilarities between the stories:

1. In the story of Odysseus it is identified as a foot washing. It isn't in Mark.
2. With Odysseus it is water. In Mark it is ointment.
3. With Odysseus the footwashing identifies a physical characteristic. In Mark it doesn't.
4. With Odysseus the hero is returning to family after an absence. In Mark he isn't.
5. With Odysseus the hero was disguised. In Mark he isn't.
6. In Mark the anointing is a prophecy of the hero's death. With Odysseus it isn't.
7. The recognition of Odysseus through the footwashing is a prelude to him killing his wife's suitors. In Mark there is recognition in the anointing, no wife, no suitors, and Jesus doesn't kill anyone.

The whole point of the Odysseus foot washing story and the details of the story are entirely different from Mark's account of the anointing.

Zubeneschamali

kelly1 wrote: »

I would expect that if they were fabricating the story, they would paint themselves in the best possible light.]

One of the things the Gospel authors try to do (which I have not seen oldrnwisr discuss recently) is shoehorn in stories and details which can be seen as fulfillment of OT prophecies. Often these are weird and unlikely, as the prophecies were poorly understood or not seen as prophecies at all before the gospel writers made them so.

Hence mad stuff like Jesus riding into the city on both a colt and a donkey at the same time.

In the case of the disciples betraying Jesus, the gospel author thought it was more important to have a story that could claim to be a fulfillment of a "prophecy" from Isaiah than to make the disciples look good.

Judas looks to me to be entirely built from snippets of OT "prophecy", bread at the last supper, betrayal, 30 pieces of silver etc. etc.

oldrnwisr

Nick Park wrote: »

As for demanding clear and concise counterarguments - that's a bit like claiming "Green is the same colour as black" and then belittling someone for saying, "er, no they're not". The burden is on you to offer some evidence for why you claim two dissimilar events are related.

I did. I offered an argument in post 397 and all you offered in return was a hand-waving contradiction. You see usually in this forum we end up with a fairly high standard of debate (at least when the topic is serious). So users are usually expected to follow certain standards of argument (I'm sure one of the mods can clarify this for you). One of the best illustration of these standards in this image which used to form part of the politics charter:



Now, your first reply to my post was somewhere between contradiction (since all you offered was a no that's wrong answer) and ad hominem with your head in the trees comment. At no point did you offer anything resembling the top three tiers of the diagram above.

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, not that anointings were particularly rare in the ancient world. In fact, Mark's anointing isn't even specified as a foot washing in his Gospel. The ointment was poured on his head and body. It's other Gospel writers who specify it is a foot washing - even though Mark is the one who is supposed to be copying a foot washing. Funny that.


Er, how exactly do you think an anointing could occur without a liquid being used? Every anointing in history involved liquid being spilled.

Of course the liquids are completely different. In the one case its plain old water, in the other case it's a costly ointment. So that would be evidence of dissimilarity, not similarity.


Actually, in Mark's Gospel there is no mention of any moment of recognition.

So that's another point of dissimilarity.



This is pretty vague. You're really trying very hard, and not succeeding very well, in forcing something into a preconceived scheme.

Here are some dissimilarities between the stories:

1. In the story of Odysseus it is identified as a foot washing. It isn't in Mark.
2. With Odysseus it is water. In Mark it is ointment.
3. With Odysseus the footwashing identifies a physical characteristic. In Mark it doesn't.
4. With Odysseus the hero is returning to family after an absence. In Mark he isn't.
5. With Odysseus the hero was disguised. In Mark he isn't.
6. In Mark the anointing is a prophecy of the hero's death. With Odysseus it isn't.
7. The recognition of Odysseus through the footwashing is a prelude to him killing his wife's suitors. In Mark there is recognition in the anointing, no wife, no suitors, and Jesus doesn't kill anyone.

The whole point of the Odysseus foot washing story and the details of the story are entirely different from Mark's account of the anointing.

Firstly, of course there are going to be dissimilarities. If there were no dissimilarities then the two stories would be identical and we wouldn't be talking about one influencing the other, we'd be talking about one plagiarising the other. But we're not talking about plagiarism. One of the basic techniques in play here is the idea of mimesis with improvement as exemplified by the Dionysian imitatio. This is how these authors would have learned to read and write in the first place, by copying and then changing a text like The Odyssey. More recent thinkers in Mark's day like Seneca promoted the idea of borrowing from multiple sources and combining them to make the source material less obvious. MacDonald highlights this in his book as a feature of Mark's gospel.

Secondly, you seem to be making a fundamental false assumption in your analysis namely that Mark a) has a distinct objective in borrowing from The Odyssey in any given instance and b) that this objective is constant across all examples. Mark is more nuanced than that and I'll explain why.

Let's take a straightforward example (non-Odyssey) to begin with. The story of Jesus raising the daughter of Jairus in Mark 5:21-43:

"When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” So Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed and pressed around him. And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, because she thought, “If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed.” Immediately her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she was freed from her suffering. At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who touched my clothes?” “You see the people crowding against you,” his disciples answered, “and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ ”
But Jesus kept looking around to see who had done it. Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”
While Jesus was still speaking, some people came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. “Your daughter is dead,” they said. “Why bother the teacher anymore?” Overhearing what they said, Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” He did not let anyone follow him except Peter, James and John the brother of James. When they came to the home of the synagogue leader, Jesus saw a commotion, with people crying and wailing loudly. He went in and said to them, “Why all this commotion and wailing? The child is not dead but asleep.” But they laughed at him. After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat."

I have highlighted the parts which will become important in a minute. Now let's look at this passage from 2 Kings 4:25-35:

"So she set out and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel. When he saw her in the distance, the man of God said to his servant Gehazi, “Look! There’s the Shunammite! Run to meet her and ask her, ‘Are you all right? Is your husband all right? Is your child all right?’”
“Everything is all right,” she said. When she reached the man of God at the mountain, she took hold of his feet. Gehazi came over to push her away, but the man of God said, “Leave her alone! She is in bitter distress, but the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me why.” “Did I ask you for a son, my lord?” she said. “Didn’t I tell you, ‘Don’t raise my hopes’?”
Elisha said to Gehazi, “Tuck your cloak into your belt, take my staff in your hand and run. Don’t greet anyone you meet, and if anyone greets you, do not answer. Lay my staff on the boy’s face.” But the child’s mother said, “As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So he got up and followed her. Gehazi went on ahead and laid the staff on the boy’s face, but there was no sound or response. So Gehazi went back to meet Elisha and told him, “The boy has not awakened.” When Elisha reached the house, there was the boy lying dead on his couch. He went in, shut the door on the two of them and prayed to the Lord. Then he got on the bed and lay on the boy, mouth to mouth, eyes to eyes, hands to hands. As he stretched himself out on him, the boy’s body grew warm. Elisha turned away and walked back and forth in the room and then got on the bed and stretched out on him once more. The boy sneezed seven times and opened his eyes."

Both stories, Jesus and Elisha share curiously similar elements, the parent falling at the prophet's feet, continuing on following negative reports (child is dead vs staff didn't work), demanding privacy before healing the child and taking the child by the hand. Furthermore there are linguistic devices which indicate that the author of Mark's gospel was deliberately borrowing from the story of Elisha. The father in the first story is Jairus whose name comes from the Hebrew yair meaning awaken. Later in the story Jesus commands the young girl to awaken or egeire in Greek. In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament story Elisha is told that the boy had not yet awakened or egerthe (past tense of egeire). Mark seems to be using a linguistic tip of the hat to the story of Elisha in his narrative.

Now in this story Mark has a clear objective to depict Jesus as the spiritual successor to Elisha. Depending on interpretation, one could argue that Mark's version is designed to make Jesus appear superior since the message is explicit that the girl is dead (as opposed to "has not awakened").

However, sometimes Mark tries to tell two stories at once. We've already covered the demoniac story in Chapter 5 but let's revisit it for a second. The demoniac story takes it structure from the Polyphemus story in The Odyssey. The basic plot is the same, the hero contends with and succeeds against a supernatural foe (demons vs. cyclops). Moreover, there are distinct points of commonality which are unusual in nature (the name challenge nobody vs. legion). However, there is one interesting feature of the story. Whereas Polyphemus asks Jesus his name in The Odyssey, it's reversed in Mark. Whereas Odysseus takes 12 of his companions with him, Jesus goes alone. Where Odysseus makes his escape in a pack of animals, Jesus' foe escapes in a pack of animals. Where Odysseus taunts Polyphemus after his escape, Jesus doesn't. Where Odysseus reveals his true name, Jesus doesn't. At almost every point of commonality there is a reversal. But this isn't an accidental dissimilarity it's deliberate. You see, as much of a hero as Odysseus was, he was also morally flawed. That's not the picture Mark wants for Jesus. He wants a flawless hero. Someone vastly superior to the prophets of the OT or the heroes of Greek myth. Where they are prideful he is humble, where they are cowardly he is courageous.
The other point about Mark's story is that he also deliberately introduces dissimilarities in order to make a secondary point. In the Polyphemus story Odysseus and his men make their escape on sheep. Mark however changes it to pigs, a dissimilarity. However, the use of pigs indicates that there is another allegorical level to the story. This is where the cultural context of Mark comes into play. Mark was completed around 70CE and probably written sometime between 65 and 70. This places the gospel in the midst of the first Jewish Roman war, a conflict spear-headed (on the Roman side) by Legio x Fretensis, a Roman legion garrisoned in Judea, commanded by Vespasian one of whose symbols was a boar as seen below:



The exorcism story is an allegorical foreshadowing, a hope that Jesus would return to expel the Romans from Judea like the demons were expelled from the man.

Also, a connection between The Odyssey in Mark doesn't have to have a clear objective like the Elisha story. Sometimes it is enough to simply make the connection, for the connection to be self-serving. For example, let's take the Simpsons. In Season 11 Episode 5, E-I-E-I-D'Oh, Homer takes the family back to his childhood home to escape a duel with a southern gentleman. He tries to plant crops but fails miserably. He then tries again with the help of some plutonium with the same results. Disheartened, he concludes that nothing can be grown in that soil. He then glances across to his neighbours who are walking an elephant through their corn field. One of them remarks: "It's up to her eye boys, time to harvest." While it could be interpreted as simply showing how tall the corn had gotten it's actually a reference to the song Oh What a Beautiful Morning from Oklahoma: "The corn is as high as an elephant's eye, An' it looks like its climbin' clear up to the sky." But the connection itself is self-serving, it has no impact on the wider story. It's sole purpose is to remind the viewer of that song lyric.

Mark does something similar in his gospel. Some of his references are not intended to be self-contained stories but signposts, reminding the reader about the connection between Odysseus and Jesus. One such example is that of Elpenor. As I mentioned briefly in my last post, one of the parallels between The Odyssey and Mark is the appearance of an Elpenor character. In Mark 14, the story of Jesus' arrest ends very strangely with a yojng naked man fleeing the scene. It makes very little sense to the arrest story and isn't explained further. A similar young man clad in white raiment appears then at the tomb in Mark 16. MacDonald argues that this is a reference to Elpenor, one of Odysseus' crew, who falls to his death from the roof of Circe's house and meets him in Hades. There Elpenor beseeches Odysseus to return to bury his body, but more importantly to remember him when he finally gets through Hades and back to Ithaca. However, there isn't a larger objective in this ersatz-Elpenor in Mark. It simply serves to remind the reader of the Odysseus-Jesus connection. It's like the first Bioshock. All the way through you've got Atlas guiding you subtly influencing your behaviour through the phrase "would you kindly". At the end there's a denouement as the conditioning is revealed which makes you rethink the entire game. Although there's no denouement in Mark, he does drop in these little reminders that Jesus is the new Odysseus, an Odysseus mark 2 without all the character flaws.

Now, back to Eurycleia. Sometimes, the story itself as I've shown above isn't important. Sometimes it just acts as a waypoint toward another story. In the Eurycleia story, the points of commonality are designed to bring the Odyssey back into the minds of the reader. Why? It's a temporal reminder of what's about to happen. In The Odyssey, Odysseus' return to Ithaca in disguise happens in the build up to a showdown with the suitors. In Mark's gospel the anointing story it's a build-up to Jesus' imminent arrest and trial. Both stories end abruptly with a shift to a discussion of the main character's enemies. By this time Mark has established the character parallels repeatedly, Jesus as Odysseus, the Pharisees as the suitors. The purpose of the Eurycleia story is to establish a connection between this anonymous anointing woman and Eurycleia so that the reader understands what's about to happen. It wouldn't make much sense for Mark to borrow heavily from the Eurycleia story. It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to grab the washer woman by the throat as Odysseus does with Eurycleia, it wouldn't make much sense for Jesus to inquire about the other servants as Odysseus does. What's important is the connection between the anonymous woman and Eurycleia. Why does the anonymous woman anoint Jesus at all? Because she recognises him as the son of God. Yes, there's no recognition within the story because the recognition has already happened. The reason the woman anoints him is because she recognises him. But the recognition aspect remains. Similarly, the Markan story claims that this anonymous woman will receive widespread fame. How exactly, if she's anonymous is she going to become famous? But when you realise that Eurycleia means widespread fame as the readers would have, then the connection is established.

Finally, this debate reminds me of the creationism megathread. Let's suppose for a second that we put the Eurycleia story aside for a second, that still leaves all the other examples I've listed. But let's suppose we assume, for the moment, that the entire Odyssey-Mark connection is wrong. Where does the material for Mark's gospel come from? It's not an eyewitness account and it's certainly not being recounted by Peter. It's a detailed biography of a man who nobody outside the bible had written about at this point. The only biblical authors that reference Jesus don't offer any biographical information about him even when writing to people who had never met Jesus or his disciples (e.g. Galatians). So where did this material come from. Like the creationism thread, even if we assume evolution is dead wrong, it doesn't make creationism right by default. Similarly, even if we assume the Odyssey-Mark connection is dead wrong, it doesn't make the story true by default. The text is still completely unreliable as a historical record and bears the hallmarks of a work of deliberate fiction. You see, it could be that some of the references were in vogue at the time and have since been lost in the mists of time. For example, on 9 October 2008 a powerful radio signal called "A Message from Earth" was directed at the planet Gliese 581C in the hope of making extraterrestrial contact. The message was a digital time capsule organised by Bebo containing 501 messages chosen by members of Bebo. One of the messages reads: "Best thing about Earth. George Sampson". This message in particular is not likely to age well and I'm sure that some of the people reading this will not remember the Britain's Got Talent winner now. It's possible that some of Mark's references fall into the category of "I guess you had to be there" but the current weight of scholarship suggests otherwise.

oldrnwisr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One of the things the Gospel authors try to do (which I have not seen oldrnwisr discuss recently) is shoehorn in stories and details which can be seen as fulfillment of OT prophecies. Often these are weird and unlikely, as the prophecies were poorly understood or not seen as prophecies at all before the gospel writers made them so.

Hence mad stuff like Jesus riding into the city on both a colt and a donkey at the same time.

In the case of the disciples betraying Jesus, the gospel author thought it was more important to have a story that could claim to be a fulfillment of a "prophecy" from Isaiah than to make the disciples look good.

Judas looks to me to be entirely built from snippets of OT "prophecy", bread at the last supper, betrayal, 30 pieces of silver etc. etc.

The reason it hasn't really been discussed is that the last few posts have been tied up with discussing Mark in particular. However, kelly1's point is that the apostles wouldn't have painted themselves in a negative point in the gospels. The salient point is that they didn't. The apostles didn't write anything. We don't have writings from any of them.
However, with regard to prophecy, it's a bit unfair to tarnish all the gospel writers with the same brush. The principal culprit in this is Matthew. He's the one who most often misquotes, misapplies or outright fabricates prophecies to talk up Jesus as the Jewish messiah. I will be discussing this soon in a reply on the Origin of Specious Nonsense thread.

looksee

Mod

You see usually in this forum we end up with a fairly high standard of debate (at least when the topic is serious). So users are usually expected to follow certain standards of argument (I'm sure one of the mods can clarify this for you).

Since a mod input has been requested, here is my view.

I agree that in any conversation in the forum a level of common courtesy is expected. This usually means that in an academic type discussion (as this one is) standards of debate should be in line with the diagram quoted by oldrnwisr. In passing I would also say that where conversations are more relaxed and/or frivolous a good deal of leeway is allowed.

Nick Park's comment about 'head in the trees' and oldrnwisr's response about 'cogent argument from a pastor' are both a little inappropriate, but hardly enough to comment on even if they had been reported, which I am not aware that they were. Posting the 'debating triangle' was somewhat back seat modding, certainly off topic.

In the discussion in question it does appear that Nick Park's answers are a little dismissive of oldrnwisr's very lengthy proposals. oldrnwisr has reasonably asked for more detailed response, and a little acerbity has crept into the discussion, but nothing that I think you are not both capable of dealing with.

Robindch may have other or more comment to make.

oldrnwisr

looksee wrote: »

Mod


Since a mod input has been requested, here is my view.

I agree that in any conversation in the forum a level of common courtesy is expected. This usually means that in an academic type discussion (as this one is) standards of debate should be in line with the diagram quoted by oldrnwisr. In passing I would also say that where conversations are more relaxed and/or frivolous a good deal of leeway is allowed.

Nick Park's comment about 'head in the trees' and oldrnwisr's response about 'cogent argument from a pastor' are both a little inappropriate, but hardly enough to comment on even if they had been reported, which I am not aware that they were. Posting the 'debating triangle' was somewhat back seat modding, certainly off topic.

In the discussion in question it does appear that Nick Park's answers are a little dismissive of oldrnwisr's very lengthy proposals. oldrnwisr has reasonably asked for more detailed response, and a little acerbity has crept into the discussion, but nothing that I think you are not both capable of dealing with.

Robindch may have other or more comment to make.

Yes, you're absolutely right looksee. Apologies Nick. That was uncalled for. I do try to post in a tone-neutral fashion (well apart from that thread) but sometimes emotion gets the better of me.

robindch

Мod:

looksee wrote: »

Robindch may have other or more comment to make.

Nope, not a sausage. Head of nail? Please meet looksee.

Gents - I'm going to assume you've shared a friendly handshake, a quick espresso with side of warm milk, a slice of lemon tart + ginger biscuit, so - please - back to the fray as it suits you both.

antiskeptic

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The reason it hasn't really been discussed is that the last few posts have been tied up with discussing Mark in particular. However, kelly1's point is that the apostles wouldn't have painted themselves in a negative point in the gospels. The salient point is that they didn't. The apostles didn't write anything. We don't have writings from any of them.
However, with regard to prophecy, it's a bit unfair to tarnish all the gospel writers with the same brush. The principal culprit in this is Matthew. He's the one who most often misquotes, misapplies or outright fabricates prophecies to talk up Jesus as the Jewish messiah. I will be discussing this soon in a reply on the Origin of Specious Nonsense thread.

Doubtlessly you've seen that drawing of a pretty young woman with a plume in her hair which, if viewed for a while, reveals itself to also be a sketch of an old hag.

It's the exact same information but can be assembled in two utterly different ways.

Something similar can be going on here. Although the depth and breadth of your argumentation is impressive, it need add up to little more than the process the brain uses to assemble all of the information - and conclude a young women.

I don't see a way to protect yourself against the bias of an unbelief-driven processing* of the information.

(Unbelief in this instance being an unconscious thing - you genuinely figure yourself to be looking at things as objectively as is possible)

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see a way to protect yourself against the bias of an unbelief-driven processing* of the information.

We want the bias of unbelief-driven processing.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see a way to protect yourself against the bias of an unbelief-driven processing* of the information.

For years people have been asking you how you protect yourself against bias and other factors in your own methods.

Care to enlighten us?

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

For years people have been asking you how you protect yourself against bias and other factors in your own methods.

Care to enlighten us?

Have a look at the forum title.

MrPudding

King Mob wrote: »

For years people have been asking you how you protect yourself against bias and other factors in your own methods.

Care to enlighten us?

Hold on, I know this one...

The mistake we are making is that we are reading with our eyes and trying to understand with our brains. What we should be doing is reading and understanding with our blood pumping organ.

MrP

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Have a look at the forum title.

Question dodged because you cannot provide an answer.

Maybe then you can explain what the bias of an unbelief-driven processing is?
How does it specifically counter any of the points made by Oldrnwisr?

Which parts of his argument have been biased by his unbelief?
How would believing make the opposing conclusion somehow unbiased?

Pherekydes

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We want the bias of unbelief-driven processing.

Also known as 'lack of bias'.

jimmytwotimes 2013

As far as I know it's generally accepted that Jesus, the person, existed in and around -6BC to 30ish AD. I think historians accept it thro agreement across a variety of sources.

As to what he did, or who he was, is up for debate. Was he some type a prophet figure, a political agitator or what? Could have been a car boot salesman for all we know.

Specific details thro 'gospels' don't correlate and certain details, accepted by some today, would be disputed.

He wasn't born at Christmas, just replaced Saturnalia in the calendar. He wasn't born in Bethlehem as this was most likely inserted into his story to fulfil the need for the messiah to be born in the kingdom of David etc. There's no record of a census that required people to return to their place of birth at that time to put him there.

Pontius Pilate pandering to the crowd with jesus and barabbas would not match his behaviour and is considered fabricated by some historians.

Also tales of youthful promise, little detail until adulthood and the violent death of a martyr would follow the patterns of origin legends in other cultures.

Other than that it's what you want to believe I guess.

MickDoyle1979

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

As far as I know it's generally accepted that Jesus, the person, existed in and around -6BC to 30ish AD. I think historians accept it thro agreement across a variety of sources.

As to what he did, or who he was, is up for debate. Was he some type a prophet figure, a political agitator or what? Could have been a car boot salesman for all we know.

Specific details thro 'gospels' don't correlate and certain details, accepted by some today, would be disputed.

He wasn't born at Christmas, just replaced Saturnalia in the calendar. He wasn't born in Bethlehem as this was most likely inserted into his story to fulfil the need for the messiah to be born in the kingdom of David etc. There's no record of a census that required people to return to their place of birth at that time to put him there.

Pontius Pilate pandering to the crowd with jesus and barabbas would not match his behaviour and is considered fabricated by some historians.

Also tales of youthful promise, little detail until adulthood and the violent death of a martyr would follow the patterns of origin legends in other cultures.

Other than that it's what you want to believe I guess.

Most likely he was just one of many political religious leaders of radical Jewish factions who were executed for challenging the Sadduces and Pharisees, the Herodian dynasty and Roman rule
The story of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem his audience with Herod and Pilate and the procession to Golgotha and his execution between two thieves is clearly put together as piece of performance art to be reinacted by his devotees.

Peregrinus

Pherekydes wrote: »

Also known as 'lack of bias'.

That seems somewhat biased, Pherekydes!

MickDoyle1979

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

As far as I know it's generally accepted that Jesus, the person, existed in and around -6BC to 30ish AD. I think historians accept it thro agreement across a variety of sources.

As to what he did, or who he was, is up for debate. Was he some type a prophet figure, a political agitator or what? Could have been a car boot salesman for all we know.

Specific details thro 'gospels' don't correlate and certain details, accepted by some today, would be disputed.

He wasn't born at Christmas, just replaced Saturnalia in the calendar. He wasn't born in Bethlehem as this was most likely inserted into his story to fulfil the need for the messiah to be born in the kingdom of David etc. There's no record of a census that required people to return to their place of birth at that time to put him there.

Pontius Pilate pandering to the crowd with jesus and barabbas would not match his behaviour and is considered fabricated by some historians.

Also tales of youthful promise, little detail until adulthood and the violent death of a martyr would follow the patterns of origin legends in other cultures.

Other than that it's what you want to believe I guess.

I would love if Robert Harris wrote a thriller set at the time and place with his view of what actually happened.

oldrnwisr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doubtlessly you've seen that drawing of a pretty young woman with a plume in her hair which, if viewed for a while, reveals itself to also be a sketch of an old hag.

It's the exact same information but can be assembled in two utterly different ways.

Something similar can be going on here. Although the depth and breadth of your argumentation is impressive, it need add up to little more than the process the brain uses to assemble all of the information - and conclude a young women.

I don't see a way to protect yourself against the bias of an unbelief-driven processing* of the information.

(Unbelief in this instance being an unconscious thing - you genuinely figure yourself to be looking at things as objectively as is possible)

Perhaps you could clarify your point here because it seems rather vague. There are two points referenced by me in the post you quote, one referring to kelly1's original assertion about the writings of the apostles and the other referring to Matthew's distortion and in some cases fabrication of prophecy to augment his portrayal of Jesus. Which point are you referring to, both, neither, which? I'd be happy to explicitly state the premises and the evidence which supports this for either or both points if you'd like.

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

As far as I know it's generally accepted that Jesus, the person, existed in and around -6BC to 30ish AD. I think historians accept it thro agreement across a variety of sources.

As to what he did, or who he was, is up for debate. Was he some type a prophet figure, a political agitator or what? Could have been a car boot salesman for all we know.

Specific details thro 'gospels' don't correlate and certain details, accepted by some today, would be disputed.

He wasn't born at Christmas, just replaced Saturnalia in the calendar. He wasn't born in Bethlehem as this was most likely inserted into his story to fulfil the need for the messiah to be born in the kingdom of David etc. There's no record of a census that required people to return to their place of birth at that time to put him there.

Pontius Pilate pandering to the crowd with jesus and barabbas would not match his behaviour and is considered fabricated by some historians.

Also tales of youthful promise, little detail until adulthood and the violent death of a martyr would follow the patterns of origin legends in other cultures.

Other than that it's what you want to believe I guess.

I agree with pretty much everything here apart from one caveat I'd like to reiterate that came up at the start of this thread. The claim that a man called Jesus existed at that time in that place is an ordinary claim and thus only requires an ordinary amount of evidence to support. However the claim that the Jesus as depicted in the gospels healing people and rising from the dead is something different.
However, I'd like to point out that even the existence of Jesus the man is not something to be taken for granted. For example, in his lecture series on The Historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman lays out his criteria for how we can know if a historical Jesus existed and what we can know about his life. In his lecture on other sources Ehrman states:

"Among all the pagan sources that come down to us from the century following Jesus' death he is mentioned only twice - once by Pliny the Younger and once by Tacitus - and only in passing. The first century Palestinian historian Flavius Josephus gives us a bit more information but, again, only enough to support the claims of the New Testament; that is Jesus was known as a teacher and doer of great deeds who acquired a faithful following but was crucified at the instigation of Jewish leaders under Pontius Pilate, when Tiberius was emperor."

Herein lies the problem. Ehrman (and he's not alone in this) takes the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus at face value and accepts them uncritically. The Josephus passage he refers to is the Testimonium Flavianum from Book 18, Chapter 3 of Antiquities. Josephus comments:

“Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works – a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”

Now, we know this passage is a forgery, a later insertion by a Christian scribe and there's a long list of reasons for this.

• It has an overly fawning tone for something written by a pharasaic Jew.
• In his writings the church father Origen described Josephus as "not believing in Jesus as the Christ".
• Josephus himself claimed that Vespasian, the Roman emperor fulfilled the messianic prophecies in The Jewish War.
• Josephus mentions several people who were self-proclaimed messiahs such as Judas of Galilee and Theudas the Magician calling them frauds, swindlers and cheats and evil men.
• This passage is not mentioned by any Christian writer prior to Eusebius in the 4th century (which is odd given that it would be remarkable evidence of the power of Jesus to convert even Pharasaic Jews)
• In Contra Celsus, the church father Origen defends Christianity from pagan (what would now be atheist) arguments against its tenets. Origen repeatedly quotes Josephus to support his arguments but never mentions this passage which would seem to be his best argument.
• It's out of sequence with the rest of the chapter. Chapter 3 opens with a tale about a group of Jews who were murdered by Pilate for protesting against his use/misuse of what they considered to be sacred money. After this comes the Testimonium. The next passage then begins: "And about the same time, another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews… The order of the story is interrupted by the Testimonium indicating that it is a later insertion.

Accepting sources like Josephus uncritically when they are so easily falsified means that traditional arguments for a historical Jesus should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of scholars in this field are theologically invested in the outcome and so there tends to be a wide margin of error on every measurement because of disagreements between conservative and liberal scholars.


The truth is there isn't really any good evidence for a historical Jesus. There are no writings by Jesus, nor any of his disciples. There are no contempraneous writings either by people disposed towards Jesus or independent historians. The biblical writings come 20 years (in the case of Paul) or 40-70 (in the case of the gospels) years after Jesus' supposed existence. The earliest claimed non-Biblical reference comes from 96CE, two generations after Jesus' death. The other extrabiblical sources are into the 2nd century or later making them useless as verification tools. Like I said at the beginning the claim that Jesus is existed is fairly ordinary. Right now, if I had to come down of on one side of the debate or the other I'd describe myself as a reductivist like John Remsburg or Dennis MacDonald. But the evidence is much thinner on the ground than most people realise.

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

Most likely he was just one of many political religious leaders of radical Jewish factions who were executed for challenging the Sadduces and Pharisees, the Herodian dynasty and Roman rule
The story of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem his audience with Herod and Pilate and the procession to Golgotha and his execution between two thieves is clearly put together as piece of performance art to be reinacted by his devotees.

As I explain above, I'm not sure that we can be that sure that Jesus was a religious leader of any kind. Bart Ehrman has argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet which is what brought him in conflict with the Sadducees and Pharisees, but that's a conclusion brought about by examining what we can know for certain assuming that the gospels are reliable sources for Jesus and I think that's a pretty unsafe assumption.

keane2097

MickDoyle1979 wrote: »

I would love if Robert Harris wrote a thriller set at the time and place with his view of what actually happened.

Try The Master and Margarita if you haven't read it, it's a real treat.

Zubeneschamali

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, we know this passage is a forgery, a later insertion by a Christian scribe and there's a long list of reasons for this.

Opinion is divided on whether that whole paragraph is a forgery or if there was a reference to Jesus here in the original which was later altered, something like:

“Now there was about this time, Jesus, – a teacher. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was called the Christ; and when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named after him, are not extinct at this day.”

There are many good reasons to suppose that the whole quote may be a forgery, but we do not know that it is. It is pretty weak as evidence for a historical Jesus in any case.

Zubeneschamali

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Like I said at the beginning the claim that Jesus is existed is fairly ordinary.

I think the best evidence for a historical Jesus is the existence of Christianity. People like Earl Doherty who argue that Jesus is a myth have to jump through some elaborate hoops to explain how Christianity got started without a Jesus, whereas "troublesome preacher executed in Palestine" was not an unusual event in those days.

The very next story in Josephus about Palestine features a troublemaking preacher among the Samaritans, with Pilate sending the army to prevent crowds following hims and killing many people.