Robert said
Mythological absolutely, but mythology within a given literary context. It’s irrelevant whether the reader of a text is ‘competent’ by someone else’s standards, the reader is still a reader, competent or not. And there’s no reason to create a false dichotomy between a Greco-Roman milieu and 1st-century readers of the Jewish scriptures. 

  

I never said there is a dichotomy. I drew the distinction because Mark shows virtually no knowledge of having a Jewish, at least not a Palestinian Jewish, background whatsoever. He is fully entwined in Greco-Roman traditions, and pretty solidly separate of the rest of a Palestinian milieu. But just to make my case clear, Mark frequently makes use of Imperial cult language, his manner of describing Jesus is exceptionally close to Roman emperors (and mythological figures like Romulus), and the way he constructs his biography has far more in common with Greco-Roman literature than anything to do with Jewish literature, in fact. The most we get out of the Gospel of Mark to link it to Judaism is him citing the LXX, which he does poorly and inaccurately at times.

Also, it doesn’t matter. Mythology is mythology, regardless of the literary context. Biographies of ancient figures, just like Jesus, are regularly mythological, even though their literary context is Greco-Roman biography (like the Gospel of Mark). Case in point, Greco-Roman biographies of Romulus, Theseus, and other such mythological figures were a norm.

As for readers… yes there is a reason to create the dichotomy. Mostly because the vast majority of Palestinian Jews did not read, firstly, did not write secondly, and probably could not speak Greek either. At best, they could read Torah, only, at the very best. Greco-Roman readers, likewise, had the linguistic barrier between them and Palestinian Jews. The average person who could read in ancient Palestine, also, probably did not speak Greek either. Case in point, Josephus had to learn Greek when he was captured, and even then he recounts struggling with it when writing his histories.

Mark’s incompetency is further relevant because it shows he is not a Palestinian Jew, and likely is not Jewish at all, given how many numerous mistakes he makes both in scripture and in geography. The combination of those two convinces me that he was Greco-Roman through and through. He is a reader who is in regular error. At best, he is a Jewish figure who was largely unfamiliar with Judaism, and was a convert out of a Greco-Roman milieu, without any particular knowledge of his own background before conversion.

Robert said

Chris_Hansen said

 

I never said there is a dichotomy. I drew the distinction because Mark shows virtually no knowledge of having a Jewish, at least not a Palestinian Jewish, background whatsoever. He is fully entwined in Greco-Roman traditions, and pretty solidly separate of the rest of a Palestinian milieu. But just to make my case clear, Mark frequently makes use of Imperial cult language, his manner of describing Jesus is exceptionally close to Roman emperors (and mythological figures like Romulus), and the way he constructs his biography has far more in common with Greco-Roman literature than anything to do with Jewish literature, in fact. The most we get out of the Gospel of Mark to link it to Judaism is him citing the LXX, which he does poorly and inaccurately at times.

Also, it doesn’t matter. Mythology is mythology, regardless of the literary context. Biographies of ancient figures, just like Jesus, are regularly mythological, even though their literary context is Greco-Roman biography (like the Gospel of Mark). Case in point, Greco-Roman biographies of Romulus, Theseus, and other such mythological figures were a norm.

As for readers… yes there is a reason to create the dichotomy. Mostly because the vast majority of Palestinian Jews did not read, firstly, did not write secondly, and probably could not speak Greek either. At best, they could read Torah, only, at the very best. Greco-Roman readers, likewise, had the linguistic barrier between them and Palestinian Jews. The average person who could read in ancient Palestine, also, probably did not speak Greek either. Case in point, Josephus had to learn Greek when he was captured, and even then he recounts struggling with it when writing his histories.

Mark’s incompetency is further relevant because it shows he is not a Palestinian Jew, and likely is not Jewish at all, given how many numerous mistakes he makes both in scripture and in geography. The combination of those two convinces me that he was Greco-Roman through and through. He is a reader who is in regular error. At best, he is a Jewish figure who was largely unfamiliar with Judaism, and was a convert out of a Greco-Roman milieu, without any particular knowledge of his own background before conversion.

I don’t think ‘Mark’ was Jewish or Palestinian, so that’s a non-issue from my perspective. But the number of quotations of and allusions to the Jewish scriptures are both numerous and significant to the author’s adopted perspective. The LXX and Old Greek are Jewish texts even if they were translations, and one must also allow for Mark’s use of older traditions that are not rooted in the LXX or Old Greek but show some similarity to Hebrew and later Aramaic versions. The essential issue for me in this discussion has much more to do with the make-up of the audience of Mark and his earlier tradents, rather than attempting to make a binary judgment on the presumed author. In this regard, the author and at least part of his audience were still concerned with issues revolving around fundamental Jewish concerns.

  

“Number of quotations and allusions” all of which can be explained by him being a convert to Christianity from a Greco-Roman background, which also explains why he makes a number of mistakes. Also, given that Mark’s primary source to present Jesus’ divinity is the Imperial cult of Rome, his audience was probably gentilic. All of those concerns can be explained by his audience and him, being Christians in a gentilic church, especially if it is one that is… Pauline (which I think Mark knows and uses the Pauline letters, since he shows remarkable similarities in character and theology, an opinion that a growing number of scholars hold too).

The fact that he deals with issues that are “fundamental Jewish concerns” does not indicate that his readership is Jewish. Given that everything he writes helps to excuse gentiles of various things, and reinforces Pauline doctrine, it seems to me that he is probably a Roman, writing a Gospel to validate gentilic depictions of Jesus and Pauline theology and doctrine.

Robert said

Chris_Hansen said

 

“Number of quotations and allusions” all of which can be explained by him being a convert to Christianity from a Greco-Roman background, which also explains why he makes a number of mistakes. Also, given that Mark’s primary source to present Jesus’ divinity is the Imperial cult of Rome, his audience was probably gentilic. All of those concerns can be explained by his audience and him, being Christians in a gentilic church, especially if it is one that is… Pauline (which I think Mark knows and uses the Pauline letters, since he shows remarkable similarities in character and theology, an opinion that a growing number of scholars hold too).

The fact that he deals with issues that are “fundamental Jewish concerns” does not indicate that his readership is Jewish. Given that everything he writes helps to excuse gentiles of various things, and reinforces Pauline doctrine, it seems to me that he is probably a Roman, writing a Gospel to validate gentilic depictions of Jesus and Pauline theology and doctrine.

Even if we assume that ‘Mark’ is a convert to ‘Christianity’ from a Greco-Roman background, that does not really explain the importance of the number of quotations and allusions to Jewish scriptures. It is still a significant issue to be reckoned with in any determination of the genre of Mark’s gospel. As for mistakes Mark makes about Judaism, these too need to be seen within the context of 2nd-Temple Jewish writings, in which we find similar ‘mistakes’ by indisputably Jewish authors. But, again, the binary judgment about the ‘Jewish’ or non-Jewish identity of the author (or audience) of Mark’s gospel is not crucial to the question of genre. You still seem to be arguing a point of contention with which I do not contend.

  

Yes actually it does. The scriptures were adopted by gentilic Christians, hence why Paul also uses them… in letters specifically written to gentiles. The use of scripture by Mark has no relevance when he is writing to Christians. We know that by the 50’s CE, Christians of all walks were using the LXX, regardless of their context. It has no relevance to determining his audience.

Also, as far as genre is concerned. Jesus is framed as a Roman caesar, with imagery pulled straight from Romulan, Augustan, Julian, and similar cultic concepts. Just to make a list: the term “Gospel” (evangelion) is commonly found in Imperial Cult language. The symbol of the spirit discending on Jesus like a white dove is a common Roman motif. Jesus’ body is taken up and found missing, in standard Romulan fashion, heralding his deification. Imperial cult language is strewn throughout.

Furthermore, it carries all the major characteristics of a Greco-Roman biography. As such, it seems to be a Christianized myth using imperial cult and biographic sources… like most other Greco-Roman biographies.

Robert said

Chris_Hansen said

 

Yes actually it does. The scriptures were adopted by gentilic Christians, hence why Paul also uses them… in letters specifically written to gentiles. The use of scripture by Mark has no relevance when he is writing to Christians. We know that by the 50’s CE, Christians of all walks were using the LXX, regardless of their context. It has no relevance to determining his audience.

Also, as far as genre is concerned. Jesus is framed as a Roman caesar, with imagery pulled straight from Romulan, Augustan, Julian, and similar cultic concepts. Just to make a list: the term “Gospel” (evangelion) is commonly found in Imperial Cult language. The symbol of the spirit discending on Jesus like a white dove is a common Roman motif. Jesus’ body is taken up and found missing, in standard Romulan fashion, heralding his deification. Imperial cult language is strewn throughout.

Furthermore, it carries all the major characteristics of a Greco-Roman biography. As such, it seems to be a Christianized myth using imperial cult and biographic sources… like most other Greco-Roman biographies.

The question is rather why, how, and to what extent did gentilic ‘Christians’ adopt the Jewish scriptures so early and to what extent this plays into the question of genre. Paul was not a gentile, despite his mission to the gentiles, thus this too is beside the point. Or do you imagine that the gentile ‘Christians’ adopted the Jewish scriptures prior to and independent of the mission of Paul?

You are still arguing about the ‘audience’. Have you not read my previous posts?

  

Why: Because they were the only scriptures available and had the most cultural connection to the first Christian movements out of Palestine

How: Man has papyrus. Man writes on papyrus. Man shares papyrus. Second man copies papyrus.

To what extent: clearly not much given that Mark spends most of his time giving them Pauline doctrinal exemptions from Jewish law.

And it plays a major part of genre, because we know that Jewish Christian sects competed heavily in doctrine and style from Pauline and Gentilic branches… hence why Paul was fighting. Furthermore, the Gospels (*especially Mark*) greatly diverge from the standard written styles of Jewish sources in Palestine. Despite what you may think, genres are quite often specific to culture. And I think they did so prior to Paul, though they did not have the background and therefore knowledge of it that Paul did.

And I will argue about audience because genres have specific audiences, so figuring out the audience helps figure out the genre. For instance: Romances are not written for people who don’t read romances. Biographies are not written for people uninterested in them. Greco-Roman biographies are not written for people who culturally did not write or read Greco-Roman biographies. As a case in point, name one Greco-Roman biography written about and for a Jewish audience… I’ll wait because there aren’t any.

If you seriously think that audience does not help us determine genre, then you simply don’t even understand how genre works… because audiences are what determine the entire existence of genres.

Robert said

Chris_Hansen said

 

Why: Because they were the only scriptures available and had the most cultural connection to the first Christian movements out of Palestine

How: Man has papyrus. Man writes on papyrus. Man shares papyrus. Second man copies papyrus.

To what extent: clearly not much given that Mark spends most of his time giving them Pauline doctrinal exemptions from Jewish law.

And it plays a major part of genre, because we know that Jewish Christian sects competed heavily in doctrine and style from Pauline and Gentilic branches… hence why Paul was fighting. Furthermore, the Gospels (*especially Mark*) greatly diverge from the standard written styles of Jewish sources in Palestine. Despite what you may think, genres are quite often specific to culture. And I think they did so prior to Paul, though they did not have the background and therefore knowledge of it that Paul did.

And I will argue about audience because genres have specific audiences, so figuring out the audience helps figure out the genre. For instance: Romances are not written for people who don’t read romances. Biographies are not written for people uninterested in them. Greco-Roman biographies are not written for people who culturally did not write or read Greco-Roman biographies. As a case in point, name one Greco-Roman biography written about and for a Jewish audience… I’ll wait because there aren’t any.

If you seriously think that audience does not help us determine genre, then you simply don’t even understand how genre works… because audiences are what determine the entire existence of genres.  

So you concede that the Jewish scriptures “had the most cultural connection to the first Christian movements out of Palestine.” That is indeed my primary point here.

“Mark spends most of his time giving them Pauline doctrinal exemptions from Jewish law.” 

Are you sure about that? For example, does Mark ever talk about circumcision? Does he ever talk about justification by faith vs works of the law?

As a case in point, name one Greco-Roman biography written about and for a Jewish audience…

This is getting really tedious. I guess I will have to repeat myself again:

“You are still arguing about a binary identification of the ‘audience’ of the gospel of Mark. Have you not read my previous posts?”

If you seriously think that audience does not help us determine genre, then you simply don’t even understand how genre works… because audiences are what determine the entire existence of genres.

Yeah, that must be it. I simply do not even understand how genre works. The question is not a simplistic assumption of the identity of the audience as defined by a binary option of undergraduate presumptions and Internet proportions. Rather we must reconstruct the probable audience from the limited information we have, which in this case is contained in the text itself and little else.

  

Yes I concede that point about scriptures… I never debated that the Jewish scriptures stemmed out of there.

And you yourself give a ton of evidence of his Pauline doctrine. For example, Mark telling rich people to give up all their possessions and follow him is a direct enactment of the idea that good deeds and riches will not earn one time in heaven, only by following Jesus, faith in him. The entire section of Mark 9 where he talks about removing body parts if they cause one’s faith to stumble is in direct alignment with bits where Paul talks about how abstinence and withdrawal of human lusts is preferable, so that one can focus on faith. Mark’s work on divorce (10) elaborates on and expands Paul’s talks on divorce (1 Cor. 7). There have been numerous books written on Mark’s use of Paul recently, and I’m not going to give you a dissertation that you could just read elsewhere. Go read Tom Dykstra, or Cameron Ferguson.

Please give me a single good reason anywhere for thinking that Mark wrote for any audience other than gentile, when every piece of information is consistent with him being a gentile writing for gentiles, and his specific elements are far to confined to Greco-Roman audiences to even make sense. For example, why would a Jewish audience know or understand exceptionally specific Roman cultic references or allusions to Romulan translation narratives?

Also, this “undergraduate” happens to have several peer reviewed papers specifically about debating whether or not Jesus and his biography are mythical, and frankly you have not given a single good reason to validate anything you’ve said. In fact, you’ve mostly just been superiorly vague.