Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 03-27-2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie That, sometimes, is a problem with revisionism. When talking about the burial on p. 270 of Rabbi Jesus Bruce Chilton wrote the following: "Revisionism can be productive. But it can also become more intent on explaining away traditional beliefs than on coming to grips with the evidence at hand, and I think this is a case in point..."

Today I think the burial is questionable, tomorrow I may think it is likely. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just sharing my opinion as I explore the evidence.

Quote:

That also is bad practice as you yourself note that is is "claimed" to be "inerrant". Forget inerrancy. Treat Mark as a historical document. Treat it as a hostile witness.

Well, I had inerrancy droned into my head for almost 30 years. It's kinda hard to forget that but I'm working on being objective.

-Mike...

MortalWombat · 03-27-2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
My point is that to say that Mark's version of the burial is not entirely accurate and may even have fallen victim to anacronism and historical errors does not mean Jesus was not buried.

But since Mark is the one of the main original sources (that we have in writing, that is) of the "historical" parts of Jesus' life, doesn't the fact that he gets so much stuff wrong (geography, customs, etc.) pose a problem to deducing anything at all about the life of Jesus?

Vinnie · 03-27-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
But since Mark is the one of the main original sources (that we have in writing, that is) of the "historical" parts of Jesus' life, doesn't the fact that he gets so much stuff wrong (geography, customs, etc.) pose a problem to deducing anything at all about the life of Jesus?

None of the mainline scholars who write on the historical Jesus seem to thin so. But that is why you don't base serious arguments on single-attested material in any Gospel. You have to come up with a way of getting information from these sources. If all we had was GMark I don't think we would be able to say much if anything about the HJ. There would be no detailed reconstruction that is for sure.

With just Mark we might be able to infer a few generalizations about this alleged Jesus character but not much more.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.