Mark's use of Philo

[rgprice]

This hasn't really gone where I was hoping. I'd like to address the matter of literary dependence independently of trying to explain why or how the Gospel writer would have used this material. But, I'll go ahead and offer my theory on that anyway.

Its well known that Deterring has argued that the desolating sacrilege relates to the defilement of the temple by Hadrian in the 130s.

I've long thought that this is too simplistic, and why then would the writer be incorporating Pilate anyway? Why not just write a story about Jesus being crucified under some later regime closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, or even after?

But I think that Deterring may be right, however what the writer is doing is interpreting the Hadrianic defilement through the lens of the Caligula Crisis, viewing the words of Philo as an unfulfilled prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in an unexpected way.

So yes, the writer was writing after the Second Jewish-Roman War, but set his story during the reign of Pilate because he was treating Philo's prediction of doom when a statue was placed in the temple as a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled by Hadrian.

[DCHindley]

maryhelena wrote today, in part:
"David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?"

Aren't you, maryhelena, judging what a "writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling"?

I think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.

DCH

[maryhelena]

maryhelena wrote today, in part:
"David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?"

Aren't you, maryhelena, judging what a "writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling"?

I think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.

DCH

Yep, consumer of scholarly arguments - differentiating the insightful from the duds.....the useful from the useless.....the historical facts from the imaginative illusions.....

Consumer rights in order to make the marketplace of ideas a safer place - always on the lookout for ideas that lead the unaware down that Primrose Path.....

[maryhelena]

This hasn't really gone where I was hoping. I'd like to address the matter of literary dependence independently of trying to explain why or how the Gospel writer would have used this material. But, I'll go ahead and offer my theory on that anyway.

Its well known that Deterring has argued that the desolating sacrilege relates to the defilement of the temple by Hadrian in the 130s.

I've long thought that this is too simplistic, and why then would the writer be incorporating Pilate anyway? Why not just write a story about Jesus being crucified under some later regime closer to the First Jewish-Roman War, or even after?

But I think that Deterring may be right, however what the writer is doing is interpreting the Hadrianic defilement through the lens of the Caligula Crisis, viewing the words of Philo as an unfulfilled prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled in an unexpected way.

So yes, the writer was writing after the Second Jewish-Roman War, but set his story during the reign of Pilate because he was treating Philo's prediction of doom when a statue was placed in the temple as a prophecy that was ultimately fulfilled by Hadrian.

Wow - so now Philo is being viewed as a prophet.....wonders will never cease.....

[DCHindley]

Checking the Index IV "Christian Works and Authors," the NT works are cited as follows (total #, or in case of Mark the NT verses and corresponding volume,page):

Matthew: 8
Mark: 3 (11:27=ii,349; 12:26-27=i,397; 14:22=ii,241)
Luke: 6
John: 3
Acts: 5
Romans: 3
1 Corinthians: 4
Galatians: 2
Ephesians: 1
Colossians: 1
1 Thessalonians: 1
Hebrews: 1
Jude: 1
Revelation: 1
Tatian: 2
Justin Martyr: 12
Irenaeus: 3
Clement of Alexandria: abt 20, (19 from Stromata)
Origen: abt 22
Hippolytus: 1
Tertullian: 2
Eusebius: abt 11
Jerome: 3

Since these authors works are of greatly differing lengths, the relative frequency isn't going to tell us much, but I did list these authors more or less Chronologically.

But IF Mark was somehow drawing on Philo, I'd have expected Wolfson to have cited Mark more than 3 times. There could be overlap with double & triple traditions (Mt/Mk/Lk), but look at how many parallels Wolfson found with concepts expressed in Mt & Lk. If Philo affected Mark, he also seems to have affected Mt & Lk & John. Strangely, despite John's prologue, there are only 3 citations from Jn.

I'll try to get more granular.

DCH

[DCHindley]

The following are Wolfson's citations of NT books or the works of Church Fathers. I stopped with Jerome, and did not even try to include citations from Judean sources like Tanakh or Pseudepigrapha. Someone else will have to add the bells & whistles:

Seq	NT or Early Chr Father Bk	Bk.ch.sec/Ch.vs	Where it is in Wolfson
127	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 13.12	i,020
128	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 13.12	i,022
118	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	i,022
69	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.09	i,025
112	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,080
119	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	i,081
113	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,096
62	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.15	i,099
68	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.19	i,099
110	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.3	i,099
131	Jerome: 3	De Veris Ill, 11	i,099
52	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 113	i,134
53	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 118	i,134
54	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 135	i,134
50	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 76	i,134
82	Origen: 23	In Cant, 1	i,154
59	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.05	i,157
55	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.09.1	i,158
56	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.32.2	i,158
57	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.35.2	i,158
86	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 4.38	i,159
58	Clement of Alex: 24	Coh ad Gentes, 100.3	i,160
73	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	i,160
44	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.59	i,160
45	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.60	i,160
46	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 2.10	i,160
47	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 02	i,160
48	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 07	i,160
60	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.05	i,161
61	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.07	i,161
76	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.07	i,161
78	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.13	i,161
79	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.17	i,161
80	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 7.02	i,161
125	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 11.1	i,161
15	Luke: 6	16.17	i,187
2	Matthew: 8	05.18	i,187
114	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,194
102	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.16	i,195
20	John: 3	17.16	i,196
99	Origen: 23	De Princ, 2.3.6	i,196
96	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.2.6	i,239
111	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 7.21	i,301
106	Tertullian: 2	Apologeticus, 100.39	i,317
98	Origen: 23	De Princ, 2.2.4-5	i,323
41	Tatian: 2	Adv Grae 05	i,323
115	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.11	i,338
105	Hippolytus: 1	Ref Om Hear, 9.10	i,338
117	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.12	i,345
116	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.11	i,350
85	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 2.48-53	i,353
103	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.16	i,353
107	Tertullian: 2	De Res Carn, 100.11	i,354
37	1 Thessalonians: 1	04.16	i,377
39	Jude: 1	01.09	i,377
16	Luke: 6	20.37-38	i,397
10	Mark: 3	12.26-27	i,397
4	Matthew: 8	22.32	I,397
130	Jerome: 3	In Ecc, 1.6	i,417
91	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.1	i,417
97	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.7.2-3	i,417
42	Tatian: 2	Adv Grae 12	i,417
49	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 75	i,418
101	Origen: 23	De Princ, 3.5.3	i,419
43	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.44	i,437
100	Origen: 23	De Princ, 3.1.6	i,437
129	Jerome: 3	Adv Pel.	i,460
28	Romans: 3	11.26-29	i,461
108	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.2	i.100
81	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 7.16	ii,062
32	1 Corinthians: 4	12.10-11	ii,064
22	Acts: 5	10.03	ii,064
25	Acts: 5	27.23	ii,064
35	Ephesians: 1	03.05	ii,064
12	Luke: 6	01.11	ii,064
13	Luke: 6	01.13	ii,064
1	Matthew: 8	01.20	ii,064
40	Revelation: 1	01.01	ii,064
30	1 Corinthians: 4	12.04	ii,066
31	1 Corinthians: 4	12.10	ii,066
51	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 82	ii,067
71	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.12	ii,113
126	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 11.18	ii,113
89	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.42	ii,113
90	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.43	ii,113
84	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 1.24	ii,114
23	Acts: 5	17.23	ii,115
36	Colossians: 1	01.15	ii,151
18	John: 3	01.18	ii,151
19	John: 3	02.24	ii,151
88	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.27	ii,151
92	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.8	ii,151
93	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.9	ii,151
94	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.1.1-4	ii,151
74	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	ii,152
72	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.12	ii,154
95	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.1.5	ii,154
66	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.02	ii,155
70	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.11	ii,155
109	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.2	ii,158
77	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.08	ii,161
29	1 Corinthians: 4	11.14	ii,241
17	Luke: 6	22.17	ii,241
11	Mark: 3	14.22	ii,241
7	Matthew: 8	26.26	ii,241
120	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,242
14	Luke: 6	12.28	ii,250
3	Matthew: 8	05.19	ii,277
121	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,290
122	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,291
123	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,292
26	Romans: 3	02.14	ii,307
64	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.28	ii,308
65	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.29	ii,308
67	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.18	ii,308
87	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 5.37	ii,308
83	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 1.18	ii,309
104	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.17	ii,309
21	Acts: 5	04.23	ii,349
9	Mark: 3	11.27	ii,349
8	Matthew: 8	28.41	ii,349
124	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,396
63	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.26	ii,431
75	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	ii,431
24	Acts: 5	20.28	ii,432
33	Galatians: 2	03.29	ii,432
34	Galatians: 2	06.16	ii,432
27	Romans: 3	08.04	ii,432
38	Hebrews: 1	04.14	ii,433
5	Matthew: 8	23.21	ii,433
6	Matthew: 8	25.34	ii,433

[DCHindley]

This is same info, although sorted as the initial list was, by Wolfson's citations of these Christian authors/books, in more or less chronological order for early Christian fathers. Some totals of citations by books were off a bit after deciding to split some of them that were discussed in two places. You can see where this has occurred.

Seq	NT or Early Chr Father Bk	Bk.ch.sec/Ch.vs	Where it is in Wolfson
1	Matthew: 8	01.20	ii,064
2	Matthew: 8	05.18	i,187
3	Matthew: 8	05.19	ii,277
4	Matthew: 8	22.32	i,397
5	Matthew: 8	23.21	ii,433
6	Matthew: 8	25.34	ii,433
7	Matthew: 8	26.26	ii,241
8	Matthew: 8	28.41	ii,349
9	Mark: 3	11.27	ii,349
10	Mark: 3	12.26-27	i,397
11	Mark: 3	14.22	ii,241
12	Luke: 6	01.11	ii,064
13	Luke: 6	01.13	ii,064
14	Luke: 6	12.28	ii,250
15	Luke: 6	16.17	i,187
16	Luke: 6	20.37-38	i,397
17	Luke: 6	22.17	ii,241
18	John: 3	01.18	ii,151
19	John: 3	02.24	ii,151
20	John: 3	17.16	i,196
21	Acts: 5	04.23	ii,349
22	Acts: 5	10.03	ii,064
23	Acts: 5	17.23	ii,115
24	Acts: 5	20.28	ii,432
25	Acts: 5	27.23	ii,064
26	Romans: 3	02.14	ii,307
27	Romans: 3	08.04	ii,432
28	Romans: 3	11.26-29	i,461
29	1 Corinthians: 4	11.14	ii,241
30	1 Corinthians: 4	12.04	ii,066
31	1 Corinthians: 4	12.10	ii,066
32	1 Corinthians: 4	12.10-11	ii,064
33	Galatians: 2	03.29	ii,432
34	Galatians: 2	06.16	ii,432
35	Ephesians: 1	03.05	ii,064
36	Colossians: 1	01.15	ii,151
37	1 Thessalonians: 1	04.16	i,377
38	Hebrews: 1	04.14	ii,433
39	Jude: 1	01.09	i,377
40	Revelation: 1	01.01	ii,064
41	Tatian: 2	Adv Grae 05	i,323
42	Tatian: 2	Adv Grae 12	i,417
43	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.44	i,437
44	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.59	i,160
45	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 1.60	i,160
46	Justin Martyr: 12	Apology, 2.10	i,160
47	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 02	i,160
48	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 07	i,160
49	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 75	i,418
50	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 76	i,134
51	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 82	ii,067
52	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 113	i,134
53	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 118	i,134
54	Justin Martyr: 12	Dialogue, 135	i,134
55	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.09.1	i,158
56	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.32.2	i,158
57	Irenaeus: 3	Adv Her, 4.35.2	i,158
58	Clement of Alex: 24	Coh ad Gentes, 100.3	i,160
59	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.05	i,157
60	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.05	i,161
61	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.07	i,161
62	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.15	i,099
63	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.26	ii,431
64	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.28	ii,308
65	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 1.29	ii,308
66	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.02	ii,155
67	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.18	ii,308
68	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 2.19	i,099
69	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.09	i,025
70	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.11	ii,155
71	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.12	ii,113
72	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.12	ii,154
73	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	i,160
74	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	ii,152
75	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 5.14	ii,431
76	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.07	i,161
77	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.08	ii,161
78	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.13	i,161
79	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 6.17	i,161
80	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 7.02	i,161
81	Clement of Alex: 24	Strom, 7.16	ii,062
82	Origen: 23	In Cant, 1	i,154
83	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 1.18	ii,309
84	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 1.24	ii,114
85	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 2.48-53	i,353
86	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 4.38	i,159
87	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 5.37	ii,308
88	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.27	ii,151
89	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.42	ii,113
90	Origen: 23	Cont Celsum, 7.43	ii,113
91	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.1	i,417
92	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.8	ii,151
93	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.0.9	ii,151
94	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.1.1-4	ii,151
95	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.1.5	ii,154
96	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.2.6	i,239
97	Origen: 23	De Princ, 1.7.2-3	i,417
98	Origen: 23	De Princ, 2.2.4-5	i,323
99	Origen: 23	De Princ, 2.3.6	i,196
100	Origen: 23	De Princ, 3.1.6	i,437
101	Origen: 23	De Princ, 3.5.3	i,419
102	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.16	i,195
103	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.16	i,353
104	Origen: 23	De Princ, 4.1.17	ii,309
105	Hippolytus: 1	Ref Om Hear, 9.10	i,338
106	Tertullian: 2	Apologeticus, 100.39	i,317
107	Tertullian: 2	De Res Carn, 100.11	i,354
108	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.2	i.100
109	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.2	ii,158
110	Eusebius: 21	Hist Ecc 2.4.3	i,099
111	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 7.21	i,301
112	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,080
113	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,096
114	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.7	i,194
115	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.11	i,338
116	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.11	i,350
117	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.12	i,345
118	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	i,022
119	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	i,081
120	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,242
121	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,290
122	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,291
123	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,292
124	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 8.14	ii,396
125	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 11.1	i,161
126	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 11.18	ii,113
127	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 13.12	i,020
128	Eusebius: 21	Pr Ev, 13.12	i,022
129	Jerome: 3	Adv Pel.	i,460
130	Jerome: 3	In Ecc, 1.6	i,417
131	Jerome: 3	De Veris Ill, 11	i,099

[rgprice]

I'm not sure what these lists of citations have to do with anything...

[billd89]

Philo's historical account of the reign of Caligula includes a prediction of impending doom on the Jewish people if/when a sacrilegious statue is erected in the Temple.

True, the version we've received has this prophecy, but we have no idea for how long or extensively such an 'oracle' was trafficked about. IF Philo recorded this, an actual threat -- rather than a popular fable which HAD to be included in the story -- the lineage of prognostication is still problematic, more complicated than his "history" reveals. To wit, an ancient Jewish fear, generations-old: the Jews KNEW what the Romans did to others' temples. And that's what the Defilement "Meme" is all about: Romans set up their own statues in vassals' temples, inevitably. Ergo, (Jewish) dread, foreboding and oracular wackiness explains your un-complicated mystery.

Might there even be faint echoes of such a Prophetic Dread in the NT, w/o any correspondence to Philo? Quite possibly. Unfortunately, however, none of this -- vague speculation -- supports any claim to Mark's dependence on Philo.

An association between Pilate and the impending erection of the sacrilegious statue that will surely bring doom upon the Jews.

Philo's history doesn't say that, tho.

But yet, the erection of the statue never happened.

It didn't have to. Certainly, you're familiar with unfulfilled prophecies; don't we all 'get' the Doomsday Meme, anyway? It doesn't even have to happen for many people to believe it did. The socio-psychology is what's important here: a Jewish Dread.

Who would know about the incident with the mocking of the "Jewish king" other than from the writings of Philo? Explain the relevance of this "meme", in what time period, its relation or lack of relation to the works of Philo?

Philo is the exploiter, not the begettor, of this shop-worn trope. The mocking of the King, by a fool is an ancient cross-cultural archetype; it was present in Egypt thousands of years before Philo. And even flourished later, in Renaissance Europe. As the Met's catalogue says: "In the manner of a ventriloquist’s doll, the bauble head could say things that the jester might not want to say himself. A counterpart to the king’s scepter, the bauble cast the fool as a faux ruler." Sound familiar? It's a kind of pantomime.



So the personification of cosmic disorder and confusion, Egyptian god Seth, was depicted as a Fool; his followers were likewise portrayed as rowdy destructive foreigners: see Hans Goedicke, "Seth as a Fool" in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Vol. 47 [1961]. Since Jews were long-associated w/ Seth-Baal, the comparison is not only apt it's also explanatory: the "Jewish King" was a classic target buffoon for Graeco-Egyptians. And for all we know -- if antisemitism was then as pervasive as some scholars would argue -- the "Jewish Fool" theme was probably Romanized elsewhere during this period also.

But in Alexandria, such a symbolic coronation has deeper meaning and requires greater clarification. I am more curious about (i.e. want more evidence of) the term "Maris" c.37 AD, and the interpretation of papyrus leaf crown and scepter. Weren't those symbols of the Judeo-Hermetic scholars at the Alexandrian Library? Again, Thoth and Seth have Jewish parallels in this conflation. See Patrick Boylan, Thoth, the Hermes of Egypt: A Study of Some Aspects of Theological Thought [1922], p.143:

It has been shown already that Thoth played a great part in Egyptian court-ceremonial. The fixing of the royal names, the determining of the years of reign, the foretelling of royal feasts and victories -- all these are functions assigned to Thoth in the coronation-ceremonies. They are all fully illustrated on the monuments. In the actual coronation-ceremonies a priest, of course, took the part of Thoth. Even in the joyful liturgy of coronation there are echoes of the funerary, or Osirian, ritual. One of these is the purification of the king. This is very often represented. Sometimes it is performed by Horus and Set, sometimes by Horus and Thoth. (i) A very interesting feature of the coronation-ceremonial was the symbolical uniting of the Two Lands represented by the rush and the papyrus. The ceremony was called Sema-Tawy. Properly speaking this ceremony belonged to the two gods who represented the two great divisions of Egypt — Horus and Set. It is, however, a remarkable fact that Set disappeared at an early date from the representations of this ceremonial. His place was taken by Thoth. This circumstance is to be associated with the substitution of the name of Thoth for that of Set in the lists of gods. In the purification-ceremony at the coronation Set also tends to disappear, leaving his place to Thoth. All this, of course, is somehow to be connected with the gradual degradation of Set to the level of a Typhonic being.

Does all this need to be explained? Much of the Jewish OT is obsessed w/ Egypt, a place where 'the Jews' are mythically 'held captive'. Moses is Egyptian. In fact, Semites long resident in Lower Egypt had periodically ruled -- and come into conflict -- w/ Egyptians, Assyrians, and Greeks, battling over the world's richest farmland, and an Empire avant le mot. Meanwhile, in 38AD, the Herodian satrapy expanded enormously by the successful scheming of a Jewish faction or one man, Agrippa: which was it? Greeks saw his arrival in Alexandria as a threat: yet another Assyrian sally, straight into the de facto capital of Lower Egypt (skipping the Siriad)? Local history must have known dozens prior. So a risible pantomime of the ancient Sema-Tawy, detourned w/ a Jewish Fool, was an exquisitely political snub loaded w/ well-known local symbolism.



On the other, Jewish side: Messianic Judaism, in Egypt, meant what exactly? And Agrippa is judged how, by subsequent rabbinical Judaism? Again, it's not at all surprising that Mark and the NT might echo something of this import: w/ no need whatsoever for Philo, as mediator. The (Egyptian) Jews were already dreaming of a Savior-King, for many many generations before 38AD.

Re: "Maris"
Mari (symbol of defeated babylon?) was where Chaldaeans migrated from, there was a ziggurat (Tower of Babel) at Mari before it was destroyed -- repeatedly. But also: heckling the Jewish King with a Chaldaean title was tauntingly recalling his Oriental/Assyrian background, IF that is what 'Maris" means. Final thought: screaming "Mari, Mari" (pidgin Latin) at Jews suggests 'drive them into the sea', perhaps? In fact, tragically and deplorably, that is exactly what immediately came to pass. Occam's Razor, after all?

[DCHindley]

Understanding narrative criticism was something I took a stab at over 10 years ago.

The following is based mainly on Stephen D Moore's Post Structuralism and the New Testament (1994).

"in its more ambitious forms, [a Post Structuralist approach] attempts to analyze biblical texts as products of trans-historical and trans-cultural generative systems, bracketing historical considerations in order to do so. Less ambitious forms of biblical structuralism seek to analyze the text in terms of their 'surface' components (actions, characters, settings, etc.) - at which point they shade over into narrative criticism." (Moore, pg. 69).

According to Moore, Narrative Criticism has been redefined by a number of recent biblical exegetes, who he calls "the new dispensation."

"This 'new dispensation's' roots and trunk derive from Redaction Criticism, onto which have been grafted elements of Secular Narratology (the main form of literary Structuralism).

Secular Narratology, he explains, is

the "conception of the literary text as a communication between an author and a reader conducted through a set of intermediary personae (implied author, narrator, reader, implied reader), joined to a conception of the narrative text as an autonomous story whose basic elements are plot, characters, and settings, with a preoccupation with the rhetorical techniques used by the author to transmit the story to the reader." (Moore, pp. 67-68).

The closest parallel Moore can think of to Narrative Criticism's employment of holistic readings was the "New Criticism" of the 1930's - 50's:

"for which the literary work of art, preeminently the poem, was an autonomous, internally unified organism, the bearer of a meaning that had to be validated first and foremost by the context of the work itself , as opposed to its historical setting." (Moore, pg. 68).

Secular Narratology is appropriate, he says, in order

"to analyze plot, character, point of view, setting, narrative time, and other features of Gospel narrative, including the intratextual reader (at which point it shades over to reader-response criticism)." [However ...] "Narrative criticism has no precise analogue in nonbiblical literary criticism." (Moore, pg. 131).

Reader-Response Criticism, for its part, is described as a

"spectrum of contrasting positions, some centered on the ways in which literary texts guide, educate, and manipulate their readers (New testament reader-response critics fall mainly into this category), others more interested in how readers actually read (which may have little to do with subtle textual promptings), and still others centered on the factors that enable and delimit reading in the first place (competence, cultural or institutional location, gender, etc.)." (Moore, pp. 131-132).

Moore confesses that for a time he found the "new literary criticism" of the New Testament (in his case mainly Narrative Criticism coupled with Reader-Response Criticism) to be a way out of the dissonance he felt after his adoption of Historical Criticism some years beforehand.

"Soon, however, a sneaking suspicion began to creep up on me ...: What if narrative criticism were actually a retreat from the critical rigor of historical scholarship? What if its not inconsiderable success were due to a widespread weariness with 'the unrest and difficulty for Christian piety' caused by centuries of historical criticism?" (Moore, pg. 115).

Somewhere in Mark Allan Powell's, What is Narrative Criticism? (1990), he is quoted by Moore as saying

"we should be careful, however, not to disparage historical criticism simply because it raises questions that are difficult for people of faith. The struggles that historical-critical investigation engender are significant for theological growth. Employment of narrative criticism as a means of avoiding difficult or controversial issues represents, in my mind, a misuse of methodology." (Powell, as cited by Moore, pg. 116).

When I read a copy of Powell's book, he seems to feel that Narrative Criticism is quite compatible with

"the interests of believing communities" ... "It is especially attractive to those who have been uncomfortable with the challenges posed by historical criticism." ... "By interpreting texts from the point of view of their own implied readers, narrative criticism offers exegesis that is inevitably from a faith perspective." (Powell, pp. 88-89)

DCH

PS: For those who get into this kind of thing, Daniel Patte's Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (1990), provides an overview of Structural Exegesis as applied to the NT text. In the process he summarizes the meta-theory of A. J. Greimas into a six-step method:
1) defining complete discourse units,
2) identifying explicit oppositions of actions,
3) identification of convictions expressed by the subjects of opposed actions,
4) identification of the convictions expressed by the effects of opposed actions upon receivers,
5) identification of the pattern of the system of convictions being expressed, and
6) discerning the specific features of the discourse unit.
John 3:1-21 and 10:1-18 are used as examples, and then this summarized meta theory is applied to John 4:4-42 and Luke 10:21-42.

maryhelena wrote today, in part:
"David, who are we to judge what any writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling.....?"

Aren't you, maryhelena, judging what a "writer found to be relevant to the story they are telling"?

I think MH is applying "Reader Response" criticism.

DCH

Yep, consumer of scholarly arguments - differentiating the insightful from the duds.....the useful from the useless.....the historical facts from the imaginative illusions.....

Consumer rights in order to make the marketplace of ideas a safer place - always on the lookout for ideas that lead the unaware down that Primrose Path.....