I wrote this mostly to refer to in other debates. Here is Price's essay
The biggest problem with Price’s argument is that by looking over various pieces of Mark, and desperately trying to fit them all into the OT, he misses the overall narrative of the Gospel, a subject of in-depth analysis since Wrede. It is fairly easy to find parallels and allusions to Hebrew scriptures in Mark. It is just about impossible to explain how Mark could have composed his gospel from these scriptures. For one thing, such a construction (in terms of genre) would be unique and virtually unparalleled. Price asks us to believe, despite the fact that we possess many, many, many different types of documents which clearly object to and speak about foreign occupation, that Mark decided to use a far less clear and very convoluted way of speaking about the same issue. It is just about impossible to believe that anyone reading Mark in Mark’s day would have thought “oh, I get it! It’s not about this guy Jesus at all. That’s all metaphor. It’s really just about the revolt.” Furthermore, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I can break down just about any text in terms of parallels or possible allusions based on similarities with another text. The question is whether it is more likely that the text is really based off of the others, and we can therefore easily track how it was created in its entirety based of these texts, or whether I am just finding what I am looking for because I want to. On that note, let’s examine some specific arguments.
John the Baptist as Elijah- This is the first issue in Price’s argument, and not surprisingly, it is the first piece of his argument. We know that John the Baptist was a historical figure. Apart from the gospels, he is also described by Josephus. Josephus does not say how John the Baptist was garbed, but does talk about his attempts to exhort the Jewish people to live righteous lives. It is quite possible that Mark depicted John the Baptist as Elijah on his own. It is equally likely that John the Baptist deliberately undertook to be like Elijah.
The fig tree- Price compares the two passages because they both talk about figs, and decides Mark is based on Hosea. In truth, several passages in the OT refer to figs, which appear to symbolize Israel. Mark could simply be building on common Jewish symbolism rather than any specific passage. More importantly, Price ignores here and everywhere the possibility that this story could have originated from the Jewish Jesus, who would know probably better than Mark what symbols were used to represent Israel and Jewish culture.
The betrayal of Jesus and the naked man- What idiocy. First, and an interesting slight of the hand, Price takes out most of Mark 14 in order to make his “point,” skipping from 11 straight 43. More importantly, the comparison is so contrived it is almost laughable. Who did Price hope to convince? Judas gets some money, and this is somehow supposed to be based on Amos 2:6? Where are the sandals and the poor? Then, in an incredible move of sheer audacity and stupidity Price declares that the unnamed young man in Mark 14, who tried to flee, was caught, but left his robe behind to get away, is somehow based on “And the strong shall find no confidence in power: the naked shall flee away in that day…” It is as if Price expected all his readers only to read the bolded parts of his passages, ignore all the rest, and say “look… the bolded parts have some similar word! Mark must depend on this!”
The crucifixion: Here Price rightly recognizes that aspects of the passion narrative are from scripture. The sheer volume of what isn’t, however, seems to have escaped him.
I could go on like this with every passage Price analyzes, but that would be tedious, so let’s look at a few select passages.
The man with the unclean spirit- Once again, Price outdoes himself. Somehow we are to believe that Mark based the unclean spirit driven out for the demoniac in Mark 1 is based on the narrator of Is. 65? Really?
Price on the twelve- “The number twelve was commonly used in Jewish scripture and in Jewish stories, typically associated with the supposed "Twelve Tribes of Israel". There is only one place in the Pauline letters where there is a reference to "twelve" apostles, and this one place is a certain interpolation. Paul never mentioned anything about there being a select group of twelve apostles. The use of a group of twelve followers here is certainly simply a mater of traditional Jewish storytelling. There are many examples of this in the Hebrew scriptures, such as the ones below.”
First, I would be interested to know why Price thinks Paul’s mention of the twelve in 1 Cor. 15:5 is a “certain interpolation.” The reading is in virtually all manuscripts, including the best. The best textual critics, including the late Bruce Metzger, all seem to think that dodeka/12 here is the correct reading. What information does Price, who can’t even read Greek, have that the most eminent textual critics lack? Then, having established (without any evidence), that this mention of the 12 is an interpolation, in a typically brazen fashion Price goes on to say “Paul never mentioned anything about there being a select group of twelve apostles.” Actually, he did, but Price simply ignored it.
Declaration about the Holy Spirit- Price somehow manages to get from Jesus’ declaration that no one will be forgiven for blasphemy against the holy spirit to “Not only does this imply that Jesus is the Holy Spirit..” ??? Really? How?
Paul and Mark- Price uses the same ridiculous comparisons to determine that Mark borrowed from Paul. For example, he compares Mark 8:33 to Gal. 2:11. In both passages, Peter is rebuked. Mark must have borrowed!! Case closed. Or how about Price’s explanation of Jesus’ teaching on divorce? This is attested to in Q, Mark, and Paul. All three approach it differently. For Paul, he first cites Jesus, then (on a different point) declares he has no teaching from Jesus, so he offers his own (1 Cor. 7:12): tois de gegamhkosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrios, gynaika apo Andros me choristhenai/ to the married I say, not I but the lord, that I man should not separate from his wife.” Mark, on the other hand, states (10:11-12) hos an apoluse ten gynaika aoutou kai gamese allen moichatai ep auten; kai ean aute apolusasa ton andra autes gamese allon moichatai/ whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another the commits adultery.” The two are similar enough to show multiple attestation for Jesus’ teaching on divorce, but not for any literary connection. Paul makes no mention of adultery, he uses a different verb for divorce, and Mark seems to put the emphasis on remarriage more than on the divorce, while Paul says nothing about this. Mark, in line 12, puts divorce in the participial form, making it subordinate to the main verb gamese/marries.
Some of Price’s comparisons are valid. This is only natural, as the early Christians saw themselves as inheritors of the true Judaism. They looked for a continuation between the Jesus tradition and the scriptures. However, Price goes well beyond what any rationale critic would allow in making his comparisons. In order to buy his argument, not only would we have to be willing to accept that even a word or two similar between two passages is enough to declare borrowing, we would have to believe that Mark invented a new genre, although perfectly good ones already existed which would have suited his purposes (as Price understands them) far better, combed through the scriptures in such a way as to combine numerous random and unrelated points and somehow arrive at a narrative no one could have based on the borrowed texts.
The biggest problem with Price’s argument is that by looking over various pieces of Mark, and desperately trying to fit them all into the OT, he misses the overall narrative of the Gospel, a subject of in-depth analysis since Wrede. It is fairly easy to find parallels and allusions to Hebrew scriptures in Mark. It is just about impossible to explain how Mark could have composed his gospel from these scriptures. For one thing, such a construction (in terms of genre) would be unique and virtually unparalleled. Price asks us to believe, despite the fact that we possess many, many, many different types of documents which clearly object to and speak about foreign occupation, that Mark decided to use a far less clear and very convoluted way of speaking about the same issue. It is just about impossible to believe that anyone reading Mark in Mark’s day would have thought “oh, I get it! It’s not about this guy Jesus at all. That’s all metaphor. It’s really just about the revolt.” Furthermore, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I can break down just about any text in terms of parallels or possible allusions based on similarities with another text. The question is whether it is more likely that the text is really based off of the others, and we can therefore easily track how it was created in its entirety based of these texts, or whether I am just finding what I am looking for because I want to. On that note, let’s examine some specific arguments.
John the Baptist as Elijah- This is the first issue in Price’s argument, and not surprisingly, it is the first piece of his argument. We know that John the Baptist was a historical figure. Apart from the gospels, he is also described by Josephus. Josephus does not say how John the Baptist was garbed, but does talk about his attempts to exhort the Jewish people to live righteous lives. It is quite possible that Mark depicted John the Baptist as Elijah on his own. It is equally likely that John the Baptist deliberately undertook to be like Elijah.
The fig tree- Price compares the two passages because they both talk about figs, and decides Mark is based on Hosea. In truth, several passages in the OT refer to figs, which appear to symbolize Israel. Mark could simply be building on common Jewish symbolism rather than any specific passage. More importantly, Price ignores here and everywhere the possibility that this story could have originated from the Jewish Jesus, who would know probably better than Mark what symbols were used to represent Israel and Jewish culture.
The betrayal of Jesus and the naked man- What idiocy. First, and an interesting slight of the hand, Price takes out most of Mark 14 in order to make his “point,” skipping from 11 straight 43. More importantly, the comparison is so contrived it is almost laughable. Who did Price hope to convince? Judas gets some money, and this is somehow supposed to be based on Amos 2:6? Where are the sandals and the poor? Then, in an incredible move of sheer audacity and stupidity Price declares that the unnamed young man in Mark 14, who tried to flee, was caught, but left his robe behind to get away, is somehow based on “And the strong shall find no confidence in power: the naked shall flee away in that day…” It is as if Price expected all his readers only to read the bolded parts of his passages, ignore all the rest, and say “look… the bolded parts have some similar word! Mark must depend on this!”
The crucifixion: Here Price rightly recognizes that aspects of the passion narrative are from scripture. The sheer volume of what isn’t, however, seems to have escaped him.
I could go on like this with every passage Price analyzes, but that would be tedious, so let’s look at a few select passages.
The man with the unclean spirit- Once again, Price outdoes himself. Somehow we are to believe that Mark based the unclean spirit driven out for the demoniac in Mark 1 is based on the narrator of Is. 65? Really?
Price on the twelve- “The number twelve was commonly used in Jewish scripture and in Jewish stories, typically associated with the supposed "Twelve Tribes of Israel". There is only one place in the Pauline letters where there is a reference to "twelve" apostles, and this one place is a certain interpolation. Paul never mentioned anything about there being a select group of twelve apostles. The use of a group of twelve followers here is certainly simply a mater of traditional Jewish storytelling. There are many examples of this in the Hebrew scriptures, such as the ones below.”
First, I would be interested to know why Price thinks Paul’s mention of the twelve in 1 Cor. 15:5 is a “certain interpolation.” The reading is in virtually all manuscripts, including the best. The best textual critics, including the late Bruce Metzger, all seem to think that dodeka/12 here is the correct reading. What information does Price, who can’t even read Greek, have that the most eminent textual critics lack? Then, having established (without any evidence), that this mention of the 12 is an interpolation, in a typically brazen fashion Price goes on to say “Paul never mentioned anything about there being a select group of twelve apostles.” Actually, he did, but Price simply ignored it.
Declaration about the Holy Spirit- Price somehow manages to get from Jesus’ declaration that no one will be forgiven for blasphemy against the holy spirit to “Not only does this imply that Jesus is the Holy Spirit..” ??? Really? How?
Paul and Mark- Price uses the same ridiculous comparisons to determine that Mark borrowed from Paul. For example, he compares Mark 8:33 to Gal. 2:11. In both passages, Peter is rebuked. Mark must have borrowed!! Case closed. Or how about Price’s explanation of Jesus’ teaching on divorce? This is attested to in Q, Mark, and Paul. All three approach it differently. For Paul, he first cites Jesus, then (on a different point) declares he has no teaching from Jesus, so he offers his own (1 Cor. 7:12): tois de gegamhkosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrios, gynaika apo Andros me choristhenai/ to the married I say, not I but the lord, that I man should not separate from his wife.” Mark, on the other hand, states (10:11-12) hos an apoluse ten gynaika aoutou kai gamese allen moichatai ep auten; kai ean aute apolusasa ton andra autes gamese allon moichatai/ whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another the commits adultery.” The two are similar enough to show multiple attestation for Jesus’ teaching on divorce, but not for any literary connection. Paul makes no mention of adultery, he uses a different verb for divorce, and Mark seems to put the emphasis on remarriage more than on the divorce, while Paul says nothing about this. Mark, in line 12, puts divorce in the participial form, making it subordinate to the main verb gamese/marries.
Some of Price’s comparisons are valid. This is only natural, as the early Christians saw themselves as inheritors of the true Judaism. They looked for a continuation between the Jesus tradition and the scriptures. However, Price goes well beyond what any rationale critic would allow in making his comparisons. In order to buy his argument, not only would we have to be willing to accept that even a word or two similar between two passages is enough to declare borrowing, we would have to believe that Mark invented a new genre, although perfectly good ones already existed which would have suited his purposes (as Price understands them) far better, combed through the scriptures in such a way as to combine numerous random and unrelated points and somehow arrive at a narrative no one could have based on the borrowed texts.