Was Jesus an Historical Figure?

Recommend (0) Comments (0)

Regarding Mark, I once again have some questions.

1)    Zindler says that Mark “omits..almost the entire traditional biography of Jesus.” Will Zindler please name some ancient Greco-Roman biographies, and show that Mark does not fit within their genre? Will he also please show that the majority of Greco-Roman biographies contain “birth legends, genealogies, and childhood wonders” for their subjects?

2)    Zindler cites proposed “growing” between Mark and Luke’s writing. Will Zindler please explain how one can tell the difference between growth by mythmaking and addition simply by addition of material from actual history? Also, if we find a shorter biography of someone like Abraham Lincoln (such as by Oates) that is earlier than another which is more detailed (such as by Donald) is it safe to assume that the mere length itself (“Oates takes up 100 pages, Donald takes up 460”) is a sign that Lincoln’s biography did “indeed grow with the retelling”?

3)    Zindler dismisses Mark as “hearsay”. Given that the vast majority of what is reported in historians like Tacitus is also “hearsay” are we also to dismiss his works on the same basis?

Zindler errs in his analysis of Mark 10:12. We know from Josephus that one of the Herodian queens did indeed divorce her husband, and Jesus likely had this very event in mind. In addition, a Jewish woman could always get a divorce under Roman law. (It would get her thrown out of Judaism, but if they were appealing to the Romans in the first place, we can be pretty sure they didn't care.)

Zindler also errs in his appeal regarding the use of the Septuagint. The Septuagint was regarded as having sufficient authority such that it was quoted authoritatively. There is no evidence that Is. 29:13 was regarded as being “mistranslated” (as opposed, for example, to being a free translation, much like a modern New International Version).
Finally, Zindler errs regarding Markan geography. He refers to the city of Gerasa being 31 miles from the sea, but Mark refers to the “country” or region of the Gerasenes, not the city of Gerasa. To speak of being in the “region” of a city is hardly any more erroneous than saying, after landing a boat thirty miles south of Milwaukee, that you have landed in the "region" of Milwaukee.

As for Matthew’s use of Gadara instead, that is readily explained by the fact that Matthew’s Palestinian and Syrian readers, being closer to the area, would more likely be familiar with Gadara while Mark’s readers in Rome would be more familiar with the larger city of Gerasa. In the same way, I tell many people from out of town that I am from “Orlando” even though I live in a suburb with a different name; but if they are locals, I will use the name of the suburb.

As far as 7:31, Zindler has misinterpreted it in a common way. It has been interpreted to mean that Jesus and His company went through Sidon to get toThe Sea of Galilee, which would indeed be the wrong way; but what it means is that they had an itinerary of 1) Tyre, 2) Sidon, and then 3) the Sea and the Decapolis region. The journey to Sidon is not a case of "what they went through to get there," but, "where they went also." And as Douglas Edwards writes in essay, "The Socio-Economic and Cultural Ethos in the First Century”:

Indeed, even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark, which has struck some New Testament interpreters as evidence for an ignorance of Galilean geography, is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that during the reign of Antipas, while Herod Agrippa I was in Syria, a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.