Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Historical vs. Legendary Characters (was Dating of GMark)

Expand Messages
  • Mahlon H. Smith
    ... I m afraid you re wrong there, Bob. As I ve already indicated in two posts I would be very happy to be able to use Avigad s ossuaries as proof that the
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob Schacht wrote:

      > I think your emphasis indicates your bias. Clearly, you don't *want* the
      > two Alexanders to be the same person.

      I'm afraid you're wrong there, Bob. As I've already indicated in two posts I
      would be very happy to be able to use Avigad's ossuaries as proof that the
      Alexander b. Shim'on mentioned in Mark 15:21 was a resident of Jerusalem or
      its environs. For that would add weight to my argument that GMark was
      originally addressed to a Judeo-Xn audience in that region. But I don't
      draw that conclusion because I'm sure that Ted Weeden & other critically
      trained scholars who dispute my hypothesis of a Judean provenance for Mark
      would not let me get away with it. And rightly so, since there is no
      rhetorical DNA in our evidence to exclude the possibility that the Alexander
      referred to by Mark (plausibly a person known to Mark's audience) is someone
      other than the Alexander whose bones were found in the Jerusalem ossuary.
      Mark after all never claims that Alexander or his father lived or was buried
      near Jerusalem.

      I don't know any scientific investigator familiar with modern forensic
      research who *qua scientist* would have any problem with my cautious
      assessment of the nature of the evidence in this case, any more than s/he
      would with my reservations about identifying the Shroud of Turin as HJ's
      burial garment. The only "bias" involved in such judgments is historical
      circumspection & caution against leaping to conclusions that the evidence
      does not warrant. Such caution is no less objective than the hesitancy of
      the FBI or the NASB to conclude that the recent anthrax scare or the crash
      of AA 587 were the handiwork of the al-Qaeda network. As much as
      investigators may want to establish such a historical connection, they bend
      over backwards not to jump to historical conclusions that the extant
      evidence simply does not support.

      Accurate historical reconstruction does not depend on what individual
      reporters or researchers may or may not "want" to find. For the Quest of HJ
      is not variation on the Quest of the Holy Grail. It is rather more akin to
      restoration of an art work that has been obscured by centuries of pious
      speculation & half-truths proposed in good faith by people who really
      *wanted* to believe in the historical veracity of the gospel reports without
      pausing to make a clear-headed assessment of the character of the evidence.

      You wrote:

      > I don't think the Jewish ossuary data "proves" the historicity of the
      > Alexander b. Shim'on of the Markan text; but I consider the evidence much
      > better than the Pantera canard.

      The only reason I mentioned the Pantera tombstone in Bingerbruck is that
      Michael Turton had already introduced it into this thread & I said I
      "tended" to agree with him. You may dismiss the Pantera tradition as a
      "canard" & in that I *tend* to agree with you. But I disagree with your
      assessment that the inscription on the ossuary discovered by Avigad is "much
      better evidence" that the Alexander b. Shim'on referred to by Mark was a
      real person than the Bingerbruck tombstone is evidence that Pantera was a
      real person. In both cases one has an ancient burial relic on the one hand &
      a singly attested incident -- in the one case involving Jesus' birth in the
      other involving his death -- reported by a writer who can hardly be
      characterized as a neutral observer of these events. Would I be wrong to
      conclude that your judgment that historicity of the Markan report is a "much
      better" case than the anti-Xn rumor about reported by Celsus reveals your
      own canonical "bias" or desire to believe the historical veracity of gospel
      writers? Or can you produce some cogent argument that the Alexander in
      Avigad's ossuary was none other than the person alluded to in Mark 15:21? If
      the latter I'm willing to listen.

      Shalom!

      Mahlon


      Mahlon H. Smith
      Department of Religion
      Rutgers University
      New Brunswick NJ 08901

      http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html

      Synoptic Gospels Primer
      http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

      Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
      http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
    • Mahlon H. Smith
      ... Nor is Mahlon under any illusion to the contrary. Fifteen years of having my arguments voted down by the majority of my colleagues in the JS has kept me
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark Goodacre wrote:

        > I think you may be being a little harsh on Mahlon here, Bob. On
        > balance, we can't say much more than that this *could be* the character
        > referred to by Mark.

        to which Bob Schacht replied:

        > Perhaps so; Mahlon is usually right,

        and Mark retorted:

        > Surely not! Mahlon's only sometimes right : )

        Nor is Mahlon under any illusion to the contrary. Fifteen years of having my
        arguments voted down by the majority of my colleagues in the JS has kept me
        from getting a swollen head (unfortunately I cannot say the same for my
        waist). At any rate thanks to both for your votes of confidence in my
        arguments.

        At risk of prolonging this thread ad nauseum, however, I am curious as to
        why you both seem to think that there is a "stronger correlation" between
        the Avigad ossuaries & Mark 15:21 than the Bingerbruck tombstone & Celsus'
        report of the Pantera rumor. Is it dating? Or geography? Or the patronym? Or
        what? Anyone care to elucidate?

        Shalom!

        Mahlon

        Mahlon H. Smith
        Department of Religion
        Rutgers University
        New Brunswick NJ 08901

        http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html

        Synoptic Gospels Primer
        http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

        Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
        http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Thanks; I stand (or sit) corrected! :-) ... The Pantera tradition in the Mishnah does not explicitly mention Jesus, but for at least a century the
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:21 PM 12/3/01 +0000, you wrote:
          >On 3 Dec 2001 at 12:05, Bob Schacht wrote:
          >
          >...
          > > 3. If I
          > > remember correctly, Pantera in the Pantera tradition is not
          > > *explicitly* identified as the father of Jesus, and requires several
          > > assumptions to make the connection. But perhaps I am remembering the
          > > Mishnaic versions and not Contra Celsus
          >
          >It's explicit in Contra Celsum. I copy this from the on-line CCEL
          >Ante-Nicene fathers collection:... (Contra Celsum I.32).

          Thanks; I stand (or sit) corrected! :-)


          >You don't mean "Mishnaic versions" either -- the Mishnah has no
          >reference at all to Jesus. ...

          The Pantera tradition in the Mishnah does not explicitly mention Jesus, but
          for at least a century the connection has been made with such passages as
          b. Shabbath 104b (cf. b. Sanhedrin 67a), and analyzed by Travers Hereford
          in Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (1903), pp. 35-41. Contra Celsus is a
          better source.

          Bob


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Bob Schacht
          ... In my remarks to Mark Goodacre, I wrote [with slight emendations] ... My third point is removed by Mark Goodacre s quote from Contra Celsus ... Please keep
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            At 04:11 PM 12/3/01 -0500, Mahlon wrote:
            >...At risk of prolonging this thread ad nauseum, however, I am curious as
            >to why you both seem to think that there is a "stronger correlation"
            >between the Avigad ossuaries & Mark 15:21 than the Bingerbruck tombstone &
            >Celsus' report of the Pantera rumor. Is it dating? Or geography? Or the
            >patronym? Or what? Anyone care to elucidate?

            In my remarks to Mark Goodacre, I wrote [with slight emendations]
            >I argue that the evidence is stronger for Alexander b. Shim'on than for
            >Pantera based on these data:
            >1. Mark is 100 years earlier than the Pantera tradition. 35 years after the
            >events depicted is better than 135 years later.
            >2. Alexander b. Shim'on is identified by the confluence of two names, not
            >just one as with Pantera.

            My third point is removed by Mark Goodacre's quote from Contra Celsus

            >4. The location of the Jewish ossuary is located much closer to the events
            >described than the connection of Pantera with Sidon on a grave in
            >[Bingerbruck].
            >5. The Pantera tradition is clearly polemical rather than historical in
            >nature. On the other hand, the mention of Alexander b. Shim'on by Mark
            >plays only a minor role in the story, which indicates to me that the
            >motivation for inventing the Pantera tradition is stronger than the
            >motivation for inventing a tradition about Alexander b. Shim'on.

            Please keep in mind, Mahlon, that I am not saying that these things prove
            that Alexander b. Shim'on in Mark is historical, as I have stated for about
            the third time now. My reaction to your post was motivated mainly by your
            claim that the evidence is *no better than* that for the Pantera tradition,
            and that was what I was objecting to.

            Bob


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mahlon H. Smith
            Apologies to Bob Schacht. I responded to Mark G s post before reading yours in which you spelled out your reasons for considering the two references to
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Apologies to Bob Schacht. I responded to Mark G's post before reading yours
              in which you spelled out your reasons for considering the two references to
              Alexander to be a "stronger" correlation, thereby anticipating my request
              for clarification. If you'll pardon a nit-picker's comments, here's an
              off-the-top of my head dissection of your carefully compiled case favoring
              the canonical report.

              You wrote:

              > I argue that the evidence is stronger for Alexander b. Shim'on than for
              > Pantera based on these data:
              > 1. Mark is 100 years earlier than the Pantera tradition. 35 years after
              the
              > events depicted is better than 135 years later.

              That assumes of course that the Pantera tradition originated with Celsus.
              But Origen at least did not think that he invented this rumor. How can one
              be sure exactly when & where rumors about HJ's illegitimate paternity
              originated? One can hardly expect earlier Xn writers to have reported this.
              The only reason Origen reports it is that he committed himself to a
              refutation of a text written by Celsus. We simply do not have any other
              Jewish or anti-Xn literature that pretends to be well-informed about Jesus
              earlier than Celsus. Had any such document been written Orthodox
              ecclesiastical censors in the Constantinian era would certainly have
              suppressed it as they did Celsus' volume.

              Conversely, Mark's relatively closer historical proximity to the "event" he
              reports only makes his witness stronger *if* one assumes that that event
              actually happened & was not just a Markan fiction (as Ted Weeden supposes)
              or an unfounded rumor that he uncritically echoed. But the strength of
              Mark's testimony in this matter is no stronger than his testimony in
              reporting other "events" -- such as the Sanhedrin trial of Jesus -- to which
              he was not an eye-witness. And few contemporary critics would consider
              Markan testimony in such matters much closer than 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay.
              Given the speed with which unfounded rumors develop, I wouldn't be inclined
              to conclude that a gap of 35 years made Mark's report any stronger than that
              of Celsus.

              > 2. Alexander b. Shim'on is identified by the confluence of two names, not
              > just one as with Pantera.

              But as I have already argued Alexander & Shim'on were both common Jewish
              names. So the number of Jews who may have been known as Alexander b. Shim'on
              cannot be restricted to a single individual. Pantera, on the other hand, is
              a rare name not attested anywhere in ancient literature outside the rumor of
              Jesus' paternity. That is why the discovery of the Bingerbruck tombstone in
              1859 caused such a stir. The fact that it was a 1st c. artifact that
              identified Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera as an archer from Sidon who had
              served 40 years in a Roman legion provided details has led a long line of
              scholars over the past 140 years to entertain the notion that the rumor
              about Jesus' illegitimate paternity *may* not have been a complete
              fabrication after all [see *Jesus & His World* by J.J. Rousseau & Rami Arav,
              pp. 223f]. Since neither Mark nor the Jerusalem ossuary gives any
              information about Alexander than his common Jewish patronym & his region of
              origin, it is debatable whether the correlation between these references is
              any "stronger" than the instances of reference to a Roman soldier with the
              uncommon name of Pantera.

              > 3. If I remember correctly, Pantera in the Pantera tradition is not
              > *explicitly* identified as the father of Jesus, and requires several
              > assumptions to make the connection. But perhaps I am remembering the
              > Mishnaic versions and not Contra Celsus.

              As I recall Celsus did not name of the Roman soldier who was rumored to be
              Jesus' illegitimate father -- or at least Origen did not report a name
              (unfortunately my copy of Origen's Contra Celsum is in my office at school).
              The rumor is not mentioned in the Mishna which is not surprising since that
              collection of rabbinic lore is largely legal in nature & contains few
              aggadic tales. Rabbinic stories in Talmud, Tosefta etc. that identify a "ben
              Pantera" or "ben Pandira" as the illegitimate offspring of a Roman soldier
              do not explicitly mention the name of Jesus [if they had Xn censors would
              certainly have burned these books]. But other rabbinic tales explicity
              identify this ben Pandira as Jesus (Yeshua). Cf. Tosefta Hullin 2.22-23 in
              my *Into His Own* URL
              http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/jesus.html#snakebite
              Few scholars would suggest that Celsus' reference to Jesus' paternity & the
              ben Pantera/Pandira of rabbinic lore are unrelated rumors. The fact that we
              have to piece together the Pantera rumor from several sources is
              attributable to a well-documented history of Xns destroying works that
              contradicted Orthodox doctrine.

              At any rate we have far wider literary evidence of the currency of a rumor
              that Jesus was son of a Roman soldier than we have of the name of an
              *Alexander* b. Shim'on. For even Matt & Luke fail to echo Mark on that
              detail.

              > 4. The location of the Jewish ossuary is located much closer to the events
              > described than the connection of Pantera with Sidon on a grave in Europe.

              I fail to follow your logic here. Though Tiberius Pantera's grave is in
              Europe -- due to his 40 years of service in the Roman military -- he is
              described as a native of Sidon, a Lebanese city that is about 70 miles from
              Nazareth & therefore a lot closer to HJ's probable place of origin than any
              Judean city. It is the relative proximity of the place of Tiberius Pantera's
              origin to HJ's hometown that is relevant to the tombstone's role in
              supporting the legend, not the fact that he happened to die in Europe.

              Mark 7:31 even reports Jesus taking an unexplained detour "through Sidon"
              situated 25 mis. due north of Tyre (the site of his encounter with the
              Syro-Phoenician woman) on his way to the Sea of Galilee (which lies 25 miles
              southeast of Tyre). So even Mark does not regard some association of Jesus
              with Sidon extraordinary. (Remember it is Mark who identifies Jesus only as
              "son of Mary" & never reports the name of his human father).

              As for the location of the Jewish ossuary containing the bones of Alexander
              b. Shim'on: that attests only this Alexander's probable residence near
              Jerusalem -- something Mark fails to mention, if in fact these Alexanders
              are to be regarded as the same person. Note that Avigad did not claim to
              recover the remains of Alexander's father Shim'on in that ossuary. So this
              Jerusalem burial relic presents no concrete evidence that the father Simon
              ever himself visited much less lived in Jerusalem. Note also that the
              inscription of the ossuary claims that *Alexander* was himself from Cyrene.
              So it is quite conceivable that this Alexander's father never left his
              homeland. Thus the ossuary's location outside Jerusalem presents absolutely
              no concrete evidence to support the historicity of the only *event* that
              Mark credits to a member of this family (i.e. the Roman enlistment of Simon
              of Cyrene to carry Jesus cross as he was approaching the city).

              > 5. The Pantera tradition is clearly polemical rather than historical in
              > nature. On the other hand, the mention of Alexander b. Shim'on by Mark
              > plays only a minor role in the story, which indicates to me that the
              > motivation for inventing the Pantera tradition is stronger than the
              > motivation for inventing a tradition about Alexander b. Shim'on.

              Were it not for the coincidence of the discovery of the 1st c. tombstone of
              a Roman soldier with the unusual name of Pantera I might be inclined to
              agree with you (& Origen) that the rabbinic references to Jesus as ben
              Pantera could easily be dismissed as a total fiction designed to discredit
              Xn claims of Jesus' virgin birth. Since Jane Schaberg's study on the case
              for the illegitimacy of Jesus, however, I have to admit the opposite is just
              as likely to be the case: i.e., that Xn claims of Mary's virginity were a
              "mask" designed to turn the disgrace of Jesus' illegitimacy to theological
              advantage. Cf. par 21 URL

              http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/illegit.html

              As for Mark's reference to Alexander b. Shim'on, I would hardly characterize
              this as a tradition, since Mark is the only gospel writer who ever mentioned
              this Alexander. I agree that Mark's off-handed allusion to Alexander *seems*
              to be ingenuous. But he might have introduced this historicizing aside to
              give credence to the otherwise questionable claim that Roman soldiers
              exempted Jesus whom they had scourged & were on the verge of crucifying from
              the ordeal of lugging his own cross.

              So IMHO it is a toss-up as to which link between grave relic & rumor
              presents a "stronger correlation." As I read the evidence, neither case is
              particularly strong. But if I had to bet I *might* join Jane Schaberg in
              wagering that the ben Pantera tradition may have a better claim to a core of
              historical truth than the synoptic report that Romans relieved HJ of the
              burden of having to bear his own cross to the site of his execution. In that
              case my vote would neutralize yours.

              Shalom!

              Mahlon



              Mahlon H. Smith
              Department of Religion
              Rutgers University
              New Brunswick NJ 08901

              http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html

              Synoptic Gospels Primer
              http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

              Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
              http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 3:05 PM
              Subject: Re: [XTalk] Historical vs. Legendary Characters (was Dating of
              GMark)


              > At 04:45 PM 12/3/01 +0000, you wrote:
              > >On 3 Dec 2001 at 7:55, Bob Schacht wrote:
              > >
              > > > I think your emphasis indicates your bias. Clearly, you don't *want*
              > > > the two Alexanders to be the same person. To equate the evidence for
              > > > Cyrenian Alexander b. Shim'on in a Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem as
              > > > Alexander b. Shim'on in Mark whose father is reported by Mark in
              > > > Jerusalem with the evidence from the tomb *in Germany*, if I remember
              > > > correctly, of a Roman soldier from Sidon named Tiberius Julius Abdes
              > > > Pantera as the same as the Pantera (not Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera)
              > > > mentioned in some Mishnaic tracts dating hundreds of years later than
              > > > Mark shows a very skewed set of balanced scales, I'm afraid.
              > >
              > >I think you may be being a little harsh on Mahlon here, Bob.
              >
              > Perhaps so; Mahlon is usually right, and I respect his scholarship
              greatly.
              > But what I was reacting to was his bald assertion that
              > >I tend to agree with Michael Turton that the ossuary of Alexander b.
              > Shim'on is
              > > *no more*
              > >evidence that "these individuals are not legendary characters but real
              > >historical figures" than the discovery of the tomb of a Roman soldier
              from
              > >Sidon named Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera is evidence that Jewish claims
              > >that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier named Pantera involved a "real
              > >historical figure."
              >
              > I added emphasis to his words "no more." Both cases involve burial data
              > compared with textual data.
              >
              >
              > > On balance, we can't say much more than that this could be the
              character
              > >referred to by Mark. It's quite interesting and certainly worth our
              > >attention, but I don't know that we can go much further than that.
              > >The Panthera tradition isn't anything like as late as you suggest.
              > >The earliest reference is in Origen (3rd C.) and he is clearly
              > >referring to Celsus's tradition on this (mid-late 2nd C.), within
              > >100 years of the publication of the Gospels (see Contra Celsum,
              > >1.32).
              >
              > I argue that the evidence is stronger for Alexander b. Shim'on than for
              > Pantera based on these data:
              > 1. Mark is 100 years earlier than the Pantera tradition. 35 years after
              the
              > events depicted is better than 135 years later.
              > 2. Alexander b. Shim'on is identified by the confluence of two names, not
              > just one as with Pantera.
              > 3. If I remember correctly, Pantera in the Pantera tradition is not
              > *explicitly* identified as the father of Jesus, and requires several
              > assumptions to make the connection. But perhaps I am remembering the
              > Mishnaic versions and not Contra Celsus
              > 4. The location of the Jewish ossuary is located much closer to the events
              > described than the connection of Pantera with Sidon on a grave in Europe.
              > 5. The Pantera tradition is clearly polemical rather than historical in
              > nature. On the other hand, the mention of Alexander b. Shim'on by Mark
              > plays only a minor role in the story, which indicates to me that the
              > motivation for inventing the Pantera tradition is stronger than the
              > motivation for inventing a tradition about Alexander b. Shim'on.
              >
              > Again, I don't think this constitutes "proof", but it is, to me, better
              > evidence than the Pantera tradition. So again, to equate the strength of
              > the evidence in these two cases is, to me, just bizarre.
              >
              > But in any case my apologies to Mahlon if my response was too tart.
              >
              >
              > >Thankyou very much, by the way, for the helpful feedback on my SBL
              > >paper, and to others -- especially Ken Olson -- who have provided
              > >similarly useful feedback. More anon.
              > >
              > >Mark
              >
              >
              > Good! Don't let this drop. I look forward to your replies in this regard.
              > Thanks,
              > Bob
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
              >
              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
              crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > List managers may be contacted directly at:
              crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
            • Mahlon H. Smith
              ... Thanks Mark. Like Bob I sit corrected. Just goes to show how right you were in assuring Bob that I am not always right ;-) I m such a print scholar that I
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Goodacre wrote:

                > It's explicit in Contra Celsum. I copy this from the on-line CCEL
                > Ante-Nicene fathers collection:

                Thanks Mark. Like Bob I sit corrected. Just goes to show how right you were
                in assuring Bob that I am not always right ;-)

                I'm such a print scholar that I have yet to learn always to check the
                on-line classic texts that I know full well are just a click away.

                BTW. For anyone else who is interested. The CCEL URL for Origen's citation
                of Celsus' reference to Panthera is

                http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-55.htm#P7657_1778987

                Shalom!

                Mahlon

                Mahlon H. Smith
                Department of Religion
                Rutgers University
                New Brunswick NJ 08901

                http://religion.rutgers.edu/mh_smith.html

                Synoptic Gospels Primer
                http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

                Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
                http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Given my participation in the aforementioned thread, I could not let this pass without comment. First, the view that Mark was written in Rome has much
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:12 PM 12/3/2001 -0500, Mahlon H. Smith wrote:
                  >(1) The thesis thaat Mark wrote to Roman Xns is a patristic tradition that
                  >has been challenged by many recent scholars, including Ted Weeden & yours
                  >truly in an extended email debate regarding the Provenance of Mark that is
                  >still accessible in the archives of this list.

                  Given my participation in the aforementioned thread, I could
                  not let this pass without comment. First, the view that Mark
                  was written in Rome has much more evidentiary support that
                  what is stated here. It is is not based only on various
                  patristic traditions (note plural) but also, as Hengel has
                  ably argued, on a congruence of internal criteria that all
                  independently point to a Roman provenance.

                  Second, even though it has become fashionable for some scholars
                  to dispute a Roman provenance for Mark, they are hardly in
                  agreement as to where Mark was written. You, Mahlon, have
                  called for Judea, Weeden has suggested Galilee, and Joel
                  Marcus has pooh-poohed both ideas calling for Syria instead.
                  A close examination of the positive reasons for the alternate
                  sites for Mark shows that much of the same evidence supports
                  Rome about as well.

                  For example, Marcus argues for Syria because it was "close enough
                  in contact with many traditions about Jesus", but given the Pax
                  Romana, so was the capital Rome, which already had a sizeable
                  church at the time of Paul's letter to the Romans. Marcus says
                  that Syria was "also a predominantly Gentile region and an area
                  of Pauline influence" -- so was Rome. The term "Syrophoenician"
                  is appropriate not just in Syria, but in Rome too. Finally,
                  Marcus argues that Syria fits with Mark's emphasis on persecution
                  due to massacres of Jews by Gantiles there, but Rome remains the
                  best attested place in the first century where Christians per se
                  were persecuted, in Nero's reign.

                  Furthermore, the arguments for an Eastern provenance have
                  not been able to factor out successfully the fact that the
                  plot of Mark takes place in Galilee and Judea. Just because
                  Mark's gospel states that there will be a resurrection appearance
                  in Galilee does not mean that Mark was written in Galilee.

                  If one is to view the evidence in favor of Rome as (overly)
                  skeptically as the challengers, applying the same standard
                  to the evidence asserted in favor an Eastern provenance
                  would result in absolutely nothing left to go on.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                • RSBrenchley@aol.com
                  ... Jerome, ... Could Papias be writing partly from a desire to justify two divergent texts? Mark used Peter, so had an accurate source, but did not write the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 16, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stephen Carlson writes:

                    > In terms of substance, it is an overstatement to claim that Papias reported
                    > that "Mark records the preaching of Peter" and that Mark "preserves Peter's
                    > testimony" as if Mark were some sort of transcript of Peter's preaching.
                    > That
                    > is not how Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria understood the situation, and
                    > they -- unlike us -- had Papias's full statement in its context. Clement
                    > asserted that Peter did not endorse Mark's gospel. This is hardly the
                    > behavior of a person whose preaching and/or testimony was recorded.
                    > Irenaeus
                    > tells us that Mark's gospel was composed after Peter's "departure." Most
                    > likely, Irenaeus meant after Peter's death, but in any case Peter was not
                    > around when Mark composed his gospel, according to Irenaeus. In fact, the
                    > dictation theory does not appear in the tradition until the 5th-cen.
                    Jerome,
                    > who has shown no independent knowledge of Papias's remarks (in fact, Jerome
                    > denied having translated Papias into Latin). Thus, the idea that Papias,
                    > Clement, and even Irenaeus were operating under the presumption of Petrine
                    > inspiration is an anachronism.

                    Could Papias be writing partly from a desire to justify two divergent
                    texts? Mark used Peter, so had an accurate source, but did not write the
                    story down in order. He 'kept a single aim in view: not to omit anything of
                    what he heard, nor to state anything therein falsely'. As you say, that does
                    not preclude other sources.

                    Matthew, on the other hand, is presumed to be the Matthew named as 'one
                    of the Lord's disciples', and is therefore an eyewitness. So he's likely to
                    get the order right. On the other hand, he 'compiled the oracles in the
                    Hebrew language [or dialect], but everyone translated them as he was able'.
                    So we shouldn't be too surprised if the details are occasionally somewhat
                    inaccurate; this would be due to poor translation. Maybe the translator
                    wasn't very able.

                    So on this picture, we have a neat explanation of why these two Gospels
                    differ in so many details, which avoids impugning either of them.

                    Regards,

                    Robert Brenchley

                    RSBrenchley@...
                    Birmingham, UK.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.