Fictional Jesus Synthesis

[John2]

This idea of the Way of Death (which is also picked up in the Letter of Barnabas) is commonly thought to have roots in the Two Ways ideology in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and as I take another look at it, it does resemble Mk. 7, Gal. 5 and Did. 5.

1QS col. 4:

But the ways of the spirit of falsehood are these: greed, and slackness in the search for righteousness, wickedness and lies, haughtiness and pride, falseness and deceit, cruelty and abundant evil, ill-temper and much folly and brazen insolence, abominable deeds (committed) in a spirit of lust, and ways of lewdness in the service of uncleanness, a blaspheming tongue, blindness of eye and dullness of ear, stiffness of neck and heaviness of heart, so that man walks in all the ways of darkness and guile.

Mk. 7:20-23:

He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Gal. 5:19-21:

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Did. 5:1:

But the Way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness.

Barn. 20:

But the way of darkness is crooked, and full of cursing; for it is the way of eternal death with punishment, in which way are the things that destroy the soul, viz., idolatry, over-confidence, the arrogance of power, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, adultery, murder, rapine, haughtiness, transgression, deceit, malice, self-sufficiency, poisoning, magic, avarice, want of the fear of God. [In this way, too,] are those who persecute the good, those who hate truth, those who love falsehood, those who know not the reward of righteousness, those who cleave not to that which is good, those who attend not with just judgment to the widow and orphan, those who watch not to the fear of God, [but incline] to wickedness, from whom meekness and patience are far off; persons who love vanity, follow after a reward, pity not the needy, labour not in aid of him who is overcome with toil; who are prone to evil-speaking, who know not Him that made them, who are murderers of children, destroyers of the workmanship of God; who turn away him that is in want, who oppress the afflicted, who are advocates of the rich, who are unjust judges of the poor, and who are in every respect transgressors.

[John2]

rgprice goes on to write:

In 1 Corinthians, Paul is talking about "evil yeast" because he is explicitly talking about Passover. Yet in the Gospel narrative, the discussion of evil yeast really has no context and makes no sense. The only way that the discussion of evil yeast makes sense in the Gospel context is if it relates back to the Pauline passage.

Here are the passages in question.

Mk. 8:14-21:

The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. “Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”

They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” “Twelve,” they replied. “And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.” He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

1 Cor. 5:6-8:

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I think Jesus and Paul are both talking about yeast because they're both talking about bread (the miracle of the loaves in Jesus' case and matzo bread in Paul's case). And I take Jesus' reference to "the yeast of the Pharisees" to mean the doctrine of the Pharisees (which is in keeping with Jesus' opposition to the Pharisees elsewhere in Mark), whereas Paul is referring to people who fornicate and have "malice and wickedness" and does not say anything about the Pharisees. So I don't see how one has anything to do with the other beyond the fact that they use the word "yeast" figuratively in the context of talking about bread.

[John2]

rgprice writes:

The only place in all of the texts of the Bible that the phrase "slave of all" or "slave to all' is found is in both 1 Corinthians [9:19] and the Gospel called Mark [10:44] ... So this ... is a very unique phrase and appears very much to be another allusion directly to Paul within the text of Mark.

But the concept of being a slave of all exists outside of Paul. 1 Peter 2:13-17 says:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

This seems closer to the sense of being a "slave of all" than 1 Cor. 9:19. Paul is only referring to pretending to be "like one under the law" around Jews and being "like one not having the law" around Gentiles, and I doubt that this is what Jesus means about being a "slave of all" in Mark. Paul and Jesus use the same words (more or less), but they don't seem to use them in the same way.

Mk. 10:42-44:

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all.

1 Cor. 9:19-23:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

[Stuart]

I just put up a new article on this issue here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... thesis.htm

Basically, I'm saying the case that the Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional story is much more broadly supported by serious scholarship than most people realize. In fact, devout Christian scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark is fictional. It seems that what many have not done, however, is fully acknowledge the implications of the GMark being fictional. That's essentially what my book is about, but the point I'm making here is that the root of my argument, that GMark is fictional, is actually well supported by a broad cross section of scholars and research.

While I do not agree Mark is the first Gospel, rather one built off a proto-Gospel which had a different function before evangelism, I find one observation extremely important and not given proper weight

Mainstream biblical scholarship, and the entire popular concept of where our knowledge of Jesus comes from, is all dependent on the supposition that the Gospels are rooted in some early “oral tradition.” Yet the reality today is that the hypothesis of “oral traditions” underlying the Gospel narratives has been completely and thoroughly disproven by reputable scholarship. This reality does not yet seem to have sunken in, but it is the reality.

We agree also on Q. But we depart on the meaning of where that takes us. BUt the above point is the one which should be pounded on until it sinks in. No advance can happen until this is understood.

[John2]

rgprice writes:

The parallels here between the wording in Mark and the writings of Paul are quite striking. In addition, the proximity of these phrases in the letter to the Philippians is telling ... Here we have two separate phrases being used together in Mark that are also used together in the writings of Paul.

Here are the passages in question.

Mk. 8:34-38:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life b will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Php. 1:20-22 and 2:14-16:

I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know!

Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation. Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.

I don't think the second parallel ("a warped and crooked generation") counts, since Paul is citing Dt. 32:5 and Jesus is not. Compare Php. 2:15 with LXX Dt. 32:5:

Php. 2:15:

so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation [γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης].

Dt. 32:5:

They are corrupt and not his children; to their shame they are a warped and crooked generation [γενεὰ σκολιὰ καὶ διεστραμμένη].

And then with Mk. 8:38:

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation [γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ]

There is only one word in common here with Php. 2:15 and LXX Dt. 32:5 (if you don't count "and"), "generation." And Jesus uses this same expression in Mt. 12:39 and 16:4 in material that is not dependent on Mark:

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

So there's really only one parallel between Php. 2:15 and Mk. 8:34-38, which I think can be better explained by Mark and Paul existing in the same milieu than by literary dependence (like their common use of the expression Kingdom of God).

There are stronger parallels between Paul and the Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT (which is dated up to 50 CE). As VanderKam and Flint note:

The phrase works of the law apparently occurs nowhere else in ancient writings other than once in MMT (C 26-27) and eight times in Paul's letters (in the Greek form erga nomou: Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16 [3 times], 3:2, 5, 10).

https://books.google.com/books?id=SBMXn ... MT&f=false

And Dunn writes:

That parallel [between MMT and Galatians] is indicated not only by the phrase 'works of the law', but by two other points of contact between MMT and Galatians ... The writers of MMT remind the addressees that 'we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people [and from all their impurity]' ... The letter itself is obviously intended at least in some measure to provide an explanation of why they had thus 'separated' themselves. The verb used is precisely equivalent to the verb used by Paul to describe the action of Peter, followed by the other Jewish believers, who 'separated himself' ... from the Gentile believers in Antioch, having previously eaten with them (Gal. 2:12-13). The point is that the attitude behind both 'separations' is the same ... in each case the primary concern on the part of the 'separatists' was their own purity: they 'separated' because they feared the defilement which would be contracted by associating with those who did not maintain the same degree of purity. In short, the motivation and theological rationale were the same in MMT and Antioch: that it was necessary for Torah-true, covenant-loyal Jews to separate themselves from impurity, whether the impurity of apostate Jews or the impurity of Gentiles. That is what Paul objected to.

The parallel extends to the idea of righteousness as dependent on observing such regulations: 'This will be "reckoned to you for righteousness" in doing what is upright and good before him' ... with the same echo of Gen. 15.6 which was central to Paul's reasoning on the subject (Gal. 3.6; Rom. 4.3-12). Clearly the letter writer(s) believed that those who followed Qumran's halakhoth would be 'reckoned righteous'; that is, they would be 'reckoned righteous by reference to their ma'ase hatorah', or, in the term used by Paul, they would be 'justified ex ergon nomou'. In both cases, that is to say, what was seen to be at stake by the separatists was their own righteousness/justification; their own righteousness/justification would somehow be imperiled by association with those who did not so understand and practice the Torah, that is, by the impurity of these others. And, once again, it is precisely that attitude and praxis to which Paul objects ...

What has proved so interesting about 4QMMT at this point is that it has used the very same phrase, 'the works of the law', in the very same way as does Paul in characterizing the attitude of Peter, and with the very same implication that such 'works of the law' were deemed by the observant to be necessary bulwarks to sustain and preserve their self-definition, their identity.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJDKs ... on&f=false

Was Paul dependent on MMT (or vice-versa), or did he and the author(s) of MMT simply exist in a similar milieu?

[John2]

rgprice notes the similarity between Mk. 12:13-17 and Rom. 13:1-7 about paying taxes to the emperor and here are the passages in question.

Mk. 12:13-17:

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Rom. 13:1-7:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

I think this is another similarity that could be due to Paul and Mark operating in the same milieu, since 1 Peter 2:13-17 also reflects this point of view.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

There are certain things that Paul and Jewish Christians had in common and other things that they did not. For example, Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve," and that "Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

And this is the theme of Mark, that Jesus died and was buried and resurrected (along with a reference to appearing to the Twelve in 14:28), which Mark could have learned from Peter or other Jewish Christians as well.

But Jesus is also pro-Torah in Mark, like Peter and James and unlike Paul, so in that respect I have to call Mark Jewish Christian.

I see Mark's apparent "denigration" of the disciples as simply reflecting the situation prior to their conversion, like the sect that wrote the Damascus Document, who say they were "like blind men groping for the way" for twenty years after God had visited them. Is the author of the Damascus Document "denigrating" their sect too? So what if the disciples had a difficult time understanding or accepting Jesus' philosophy? They eventually came around to it (like the Damascus Document sect eventually understood "the way"). If Acts had not written anything about Paul after his conversion, or if Mark had written about him prior to his conversion, he would look much, much worse, more or less how he looks in the Clementine writings, like a violent jerk.

[andrewcriddle]

I just put up a new article on this issue here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... thesis.htm

Basically, I'm saying the case that the Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional story is much more broadly supported by serious scholarship than most people realize. In fact, devout Christian scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark is fictional. It seems that what many have not done, however, is fully acknowledge the implications of the GMark being fictional. That's essentially what my book is about, but the point I'm making here is that the root of my argument, that GMark is fictional, is actually well supported by a broad cross section of scholars and research.

While I do not agree Mark is the first Gospel, rather one built off a proto-Gospel which had a different function before evangelism, I find one observation extremely important and not given proper weight

Mainstream biblical scholarship, and the entire popular concept of where our knowledge of Jesus comes from, is all dependent on the supposition that the Gospels are rooted in some early “oral tradition.” Yet the reality today is that the hypothesis of “oral traditions” underlying the Gospel narratives has been completely and thoroughly disproven by reputable scholarship. This reality does not yet seem to have sunken in, but it is the reality.

We agree also on Q. But we depart on the meaning of where that takes us. BUt the above point is the one which should be pounded on until it sinks in. No advance can happen until this is understood.

I think one must distinguish between the reliability of oral tradition and the existence of oral tradition. One the one hand, serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of oral tradition, on the other hand, it is entirely plausible that Christians were telling stories about Jesus before any Gospels were written.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

rgprice goes on to note that both Paul and Jesus in Mark cite the commandment to "love your neighbor," and here are the passages in question.

Mk. 12:28-31:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

Gal. 5:13-15 and Rom. 13:9-10:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

rgprice writes:

In the Markan narrative, "love your neighbor as yourself" is presented as an answer to a question about the greatest commandment. That is also how it is presented in Paul.

But James 2:8 cites this verse too:

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

Also, in Mark this verse is one of two verses that Jesus gives as an answer, with "the most important one" being the Shema, and the second most important one is "love your neighbor." This is why Jesus says, "There is no commandment greater than these," whereas Paul says the commandments are summed up by one ("the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command"; "The commandments ... are summed up in this one command").

And James goes on to cite the Shema too in 2:19:

You believe that God is one; you do well.

So Mk. 12:28-31 seems more in keeping with James to me.

[Stuart]

I just put up a new article on this issue here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... thesis.htm

Basically, I'm saying the case that the Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional story is much more broadly supported by serious scholarship than most people realize. In fact, devout Christian scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark is fictional. It seems that what many have not done, however, is fully acknowledge the implications of the GMark being fictional. That's essentially what my book is about, but the point I'm making here is that the root of my argument, that GMark is fictional, is actually well supported by a broad cross section of scholars and research.

While I do not agree Mark is the first Gospel, rather one built off a proto-Gospel which had a different function before evangelism, I find one observation extremely important and not given proper weight

Mainstream biblical scholarship, and the entire popular concept of where our knowledge of Jesus comes from, is all dependent on the supposition that the Gospels are rooted in some early “oral tradition.” Yet the reality today is that the hypothesis of “oral traditions” underlying the Gospel narratives has been completely and thoroughly disproven by reputable scholarship. This reality does not yet seem to have sunken in, but it is the reality.

We agree also on Q. But we depart on the meaning of where that takes us. BUt the above point is the one which should be pounded on until it sinks in. No advance can happen until this is understood.

I think one must distinguish between the reliability of oral tradition and the existence of oral tradition. One the one hand, serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of oral tradition, on the other hand, it is entirely plausible that Christians were telling stories about Jesus before any Gospels were written.

Andrew Criddle

Oral tradition(1) is fake. It's anything a scholar wants to make up.

It's also unnecessary to explain Christianity.

***************************************************
Note and Comment:
(1) I wrote the wrong word, I meant Tradition not History.

"Oral traditions" in early Christianity are to a large extent guesstimates, and extremely subjective. But when we get to the origins of the Gospels and text of the NT they are entirely scholarly inventions. They are that sort of like the "and then magic happens" part of a black box explanation, where the scholar can bridge from one point to another miraculously without any real strong evidence to support either the method or the content of the information passing between the phases. E.g.,


Of course the entire reason for the oral tradition in biblical studies is to explain the multi-generational gap between Jesus and the Gospels, yet allow the Gospels to still be eye witness accounts. In short it is a barely disguised apologetic approach.

[Ben C. Smith]

I just put up a new article on this issue here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... thesis.htm

Basically, I'm saying the case that the Gospel of Mark is an entirely fictional story is much more broadly supported by serious scholarship than most people realize. In fact, devout Christian scholars accept that the Gospel of Mark is fictional. It seems that what many have not done, however, is fully acknowledge the implications of the GMark being fictional. That's essentially what my book is about, but the point I'm making here is that the root of my argument, that GMark is fictional, is actually well supported by a broad cross section of scholars and research.

While I do not agree Mark is the first Gospel, rather one built off a proto-Gospel which had a different function before evangelism, I find one observation extremely important and not given proper weight

Mainstream biblical scholarship, and the entire popular concept of where our knowledge of Jesus comes from, is all dependent on the supposition that the Gospels are rooted in some early “oral tradition.” Yet the reality today is that the hypothesis of “oral traditions” underlying the Gospel narratives has been completely and thoroughly disproven by reputable scholarship. This reality does not yet seem to have sunken in, but it is the reality.

We agree also on Q. But we depart on the meaning of where that takes us. BUt the above point is the one which should be pounded on until it sinks in. No advance can happen until this is understood.

I think one must distinguish between the reliability of oral tradition and the existence of oral tradition. One the one hand, serious concerns have been raised about the accuracy of oral tradition, on the other hand, it is entirely plausible that Christians were telling stories about Jesus before any Gospels were written.

Andrew Criddle

Oral history is fake. It's anything a scholar wants to make up.

It's also unnecessary to explain Christianity.

The change of terminology from "oral tradition" to "oral history" does not inspire confidence in me that you and Andrew are speaking about the same phenomenon. Nobody in this debate seems to mean the same thing when the term is used; everybody winds up speaking past each other.

To assume that Christians did not pass on information orally — or that, even if they did, such oral information never found its way into our texts — is absurd on its face, so it is clear that this is not what you mean either by "oral tradition" or by "oral history." It would be helpful to define the terms at the outset, very carefully and completely.