keyser_soze

And after all, with all of the inconsistencies(pilate sure got more mellow from the earliest text to the latter one's didn't he?) there is question over every part of the jesus story. Everything from ripped off plots from earlier myths, to a cruci-fiction that is hard to decide on WHO killed him(was he stoned and hung in a tree, or was he crucified on a post a-la-roman? Was he cut down the very day according to jewish law, or was he left to rot on the post until the corpse fell down on it's own via roman practice? Nothing can be taken for granted in the jesus account, why would you even suggest this? Especially here?

Vinnie

It depends on how you stratify and treat your sources. There are a host of texts suggesting that Jesus was a miracle worker (two instances in Q and so forth). The miracle list as well which strangely, some of you think that the bare fact that John may have known Mark or parts of Mark demonstrates it is not independent???

The argument from silence in the Pauline corpus will fall. I'll simply reiterate the classic example regarding the eucharist in the Pauline churches to which you will have no response. Paul was an evangelizing preacher, not a systematic theologian.

From the article I wrote on GJohn and the synoptics:

Miracles and Their Attestation

Gospels x 4

Feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew14:15-21, Mark 6:35-44, Luke 9:12-17, John 6:6-13

Synoptics x3

Man with Leprosy (Matt 8:2-4, Mark 1:40-42, Luke 5:12-13)

Peter’s Mother in Law (Matt 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke 4:38-35)

Two Men From Gadara (8:28-34, Mark 5:1-15, Luke 8:27-35)

Paralyzed Man (Matthew 9:2-7, Mark 2:3-12, Luke 5:18-25)

Woman With Bleeding (Matthew 9:20-22, Mark 5:25-29, Luke 8:43-48)

Man with a Shriveled hand (Matthew 12:10-13, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 6:6-10)

Boy With a Demon (Matthew 17:14-18, Mark 9:17-29, Luke 9:38-43)

Two Blind Men (Bartimaues) (Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43)

Calming the Storm (Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:37-41, Luke 8:22-25)

Jarius’s Daughter (Matthew 9:18-19, 23-25, Mark 5:22-24, 38-42, Luke 8:41-42,49-56)


John , Matthew and Mark x 3

Walking on Water (Matthew 14:25, Mark 6:48-51, John 6:19-21)


Synoptics x2 Matt and Luke

Roman Centurion’s Servant (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10)

Blind, Mute, Demon possesses man (Matthew 12:22, Luke 11:14)



Synoptics x2 Matt and Mark

Canaanite Woman’s Daughter (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30)

Feeding of the 4,000 (Matthew 15:32-38, Mark 8:1-9)

Fig Tree Withered (Matthew 21:18-22, Mark 11:12-14,20-25)



Synoptics x2 Mark and Luke

Possessed Man in Synagogue (Mark 1:23-26, Luke 4:33-35)



Synoptics x1 Matt

Two Blind Men (Matthew 9:27-31)

Mute, demon-possessed man ( Matthew 9:32-33)

Coin in Fish (Matthew 17:24-27



Synoptics x1 Mark

Deaf Mute (Mark 7:31-37)

Blind Man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)



Synoptics x1 Luke

Crippled Woman (Luke 13:11-13)

Man with Dropsy (Luke 14:1-4)

Ten Men With Leprosy (Luke 17:11-19)

The High Priest’s Servant (Luke 22:50-51)

Large Catch of Fish (Luke 5:4-11)

Widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11-15)



Fourth Gospel x1 John

Official’s Son at Capernaum (John 4:46-54)

Sick Man at pool of Bethesda (John 5:1-9)

Man Born Blind (John 9:1-7)

Water Turned into Wine (John 2:1-11)

Another Large Catch of Fish (John 21:1-11)

Lazarus (John 11:1-44)


THiws does not aim to be a perfect or exhaustive inventory of mirackles. It probably is flawed in spots.


Exorcisms

That Jesus was an exorcist is very well attested by the synoptic authors. Since not all readers check all the references I feel it is important to lay out a few here. After them I will use Sander’s classification (The Historical Figure of Jesus pp 149-150).

Mark 1.23-28

They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil spirit cried out, "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God!" "Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching--and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.



Jesus heals a man here and its interesting to note that “news of his exorcisms spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.” The same account is found in Luke 4:31-37 as well.



Mark 1:32-34, That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.



Jesus heals many demons here!



Luke 4:41 “Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.”



Matt 8:16 When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick.



Mark 1:39 So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.



The traditions in favor of a ministry with exorcisms are very strong. Here is Sander’s classification of Exorcisms and the Historical Jesus:

:



1. Exorcisms by Jesus



a: Mark 1.23-8 // Luke 4.31-7 (Jesus heals a man in a synagogue in Capernaum)

b: Mark 1.32-4//Matt 8.16//Luke 4:41 (summary: he cast out many demons)

c: Mark 1.39 (summary also in Matt. And Luke, but they do not mention demons)

d: Mark 3:11// Luke 6:18 (summary)

e: Mark 3:20-30 // Matthew 12:22-37 // Luke 11:14-23 and other passages (Beelzebul controversy)

f: Mark 5:1-20 // Matthew 8:28-34 // Luke 8:26-39 (Gerasene demoniac)

g: Mark 7:24-30 // Matthew 15:21-28 (Syro-Phoenician woman)

h: Mark 9:25 // Matthew 17:18 // Luke 9:42 (epileptic child)

i: Matthew 4:24 (summary; ‘demoniacs’ not in Mark and Luke)

j: Matthew 9:32-34 (dumb demoniac)

k: Luke 8:2 (Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary Magdalene)

l: Luke 13:32 (tell Antipas ‘I cast out demons’)



2. Exorcisms Attributed to Others



m: Mark 3.15;6.7, 13; Matt. 10.1, 8; Luke 9:1 (disciples given authority to cast out demons or unclean spirits)

n: Mark 9.38 // Luke 9.49 (the strange exorcist)

o: Matt. 7.22 (hypocrites will point out that they cast out demons in Jesus’ name)

e: Matt. 12.27 // Luke 11.19 // Beelzebul Controversy above // (‘by whom do your sons cast them out?’

p: Luke 10.17 (the seventy [-two] report that demons were subject to them ‘in [Jesus’] name’



3. Other passages Revealing the Theory of Demon Possession



q: Matt. 11.18 // Luke 7.33 (some people say that John the Baptist had a demon

r: Matt. 12.43 // Luke 11.24 (description of the movement of an unclean spirit)



This listing shows that it was very well known that Jesus worked exorcisms. Sanders says that exorcisms were the most prominent type of cure in the synoptic gospels. As an aside, in e Jesus himself even indicates that Pharisees could exorcize! But John does not show any evidence that Jesus exorcized demons. It should be noted that GJohn shows knowledge that people can be possessed by demons (see John 7:20; 8:48-52; and 10:20) but the sheer abundance of exorcism related material in the synoptic tradition forces an exegete to wonder why GJohn has no such material? The lack of exorcisms in John is a significant silence and when coupled with information below and above it casts doubt on the historical value of the contents of GJohn.

See, I didn't use GJohn to deny exorcisms. I won't use Paul to deny miracles either. Exegesis which deals with what the author did not say is highly speculative and in Paul's case, is not very useful except in a few instances where a certain saying would have been ideal. Outside of those cases and unless you have some good argumentation the argument from silence is hitting the road.

And you are caricature the Pauline silence as "early sober writer doesn't mention it but a later fantastical one does" is nothing but sophistry. Your stratification and inventory of attestation on Jesus' alleged miracle working is probably very different from my own.

Vinnie

Metacrock

Meta=>Yea if you want to be pedantric. No I don't have to prove all 11 for the argumen to be valid. 11 is just a number I pulled out of a hat, there's nothing magical about it. The point is that it's the same story all over the place and no other stories. These eleven points were just some of the ones I thought of off the top of my head. Certainly some of them are more crucial than others; such as Jesus' cliams to messiahship, or his death on the cross. Other's aren't so important, such as the fact of being killed at noon. I could probably come up with more pionts that always the same, or mostly always the sameif I thought about it.

i'm not going to answer all of this. IT's just way too long. Just to give a general indication of what I would say, if I had the time.








Meta=>O come off it Peter! You can see better than that! That's being so legalistic. I can question one little point so the whole list fails. What kind of logic is that? Obvioulsy, since this is a probablistic argument, it's going to be a sliding scale of probablity, not either "on "or "off."


Besides that this frist point is not about an alternate version. You are passing off questions about authenticity as as alternate versions. that doesn't prove that there were alternate versions. I also think that argument itself is confussed, but I don't have time to go into it. I will just assert that Ramsay proved it was an on going 100 year long sensus, not a one time thing. Luke never says it was just that one year.





Meta=>again, you are not offering an alternate story. You are only quibelling with details of the story we have. But you can't prove that there are other versions. So they are wrong or confussed about some aspect, a year of an event or a month, the time of day, who cares. There are no storeis where he dies by stoning, no stories where he dies in babylon and no stories where his mother is named Doris.

that's the flaw in the whole argument. it doesn't present any alternate stories, it's missing the point!

Metacrock

Peter says:
Meta => That's not really a different version. But Ok it's kind of damaging, you would expect them to get the year right. But the problem is, it's fourth century, and it was exposed as a forgery.I cut my argument off saying before the fourth century becasue I knew that after that time there do start to be lots of new foregeries and other variantions of the story; the golden legeond begins shortly after that time. But by that time they've lost contact with the historical sources anyway. I don't think that really damages the argument.


but he's working hard at beating it. I take that as a compliment.



Meta => But what is the historical validity of Epihanius anyway? What kind of position was he in to know the historical tradition anyway? He's in that latter period (I can't remember his dates but it seems like he was a latter figure)




Meta =>Now he brings in obviously propagandistic sources which try to smear Jesus' charactor, phrisee dervived (since its' quoted by sketpic Celsus against christians and drawn from sources in the Mishna). You can't seriously regard that as historical evdience. Come on! They are just calling him a bastard! that's just name callling, and it's one of the oldest things to say against your political opponent. But look:

it proves they regarded him as historical--that was the original point remember? It's saying he existed, it doesnt deny that!




Meta =>and that's not based upon any kind of historical knowledge that Marcion possessed, its a theologically driven conciet



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Same principal players: Peter, Andrew, Philip, John, Mary Magdalene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =>then he's going to quibble with the names of the side kicks. Now I have to admit he shows a lot of ingeneuity here, and some good research. But this is nothing I didn't already know. Had I had time I would have desgined my responses into the argument on my site. Mabye that's a project for the summer (if I ever get past this--sigh! heavy sigh--dissertation proposal! (gag!) IN any case, I don't think this does any real damage becasue most of the early material acknowledges the major sidekicks, Peter, Andy, James, John, and MM.



Meta =>Yes, there are problems with guys like Thadius and Judas. I will admit they were probably juggeling between two or three sets of his followers and weren't real sure which one's were the major inner circle people. But the same names float around all of that. You dont' ever find a list with a Justin or a Ephraheem in it. It's all Thadius, Judas, Philip, ect.


So what if they weren't too sure of the minor players. That's hardly an alternate version.


Now I admit that my argument needs work. and I thank Pete for forcing me to confront this fact, and for showing me many of the sources I should have dealt with. Once again, I am in awe of his dilligence and thank him for his good will discussion. But I don't think the argument is killed off. I think it has potential, even though it may need work.

Peter Kirby

Meta: Do you really believe that? If so, define "alternate stories."

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

Meta => that's absurd to say I have to prove all 11. Eleven is not a magic number. Those are just exampels of the kind of thing that is always (or most of the time) remains consistant.

The problem is what is a a signficant change? If you look at my original argument, I'm talking about Hercules dying in two different ways. That's a significant change, rather than being shot with an arrow, he is poisoned. differences in the names of his friends, or the year of his birth are not signifcant changes. But "real myths" have radically different versions, because they proliforate over time like crazy. Basically historically events remain in a general pattern. The men at the Alamo always die at the Alamo. They don't turn up in Houston in a bar having a beer.

Metacrock

Meta => I've said it all along Peter; how he died, where he died, who his major side kicks were, where he was born, what he did; that sort of thing.

The examples of other myths I give are Tamuz changes into Adonis. Hercules dies two different ways, ect.


Look, it's a probality argument. The more points that are pinned down the greater the probablity of historical accuracy. So it's true the argument can be damaged by some of these considerations (although your best points, like date of birth--depend upon late traditions that fly in the face of already established traditions). But yea, the probablity can be reduced. The points can be debated and cast into doubt then historical acuracy is less certian and more improbable, but that doesn't completely beat it. You can't treat it like an on or off thing. it's not digital. It's an analogue.

Metacrock

The Mishna sources also attest to Jesus' miracle working, by attributing them to magic. otherwise, why didn't they just say "Hey no one ever heard of him as a miracle worker! where did you get that?" Instead, they try to expalin it as doing blacks arts.

Jo also says he was a miracle worker

Metacrock

Meta=> I wonder if you have actually read the original argument? Because that's really pretty much beside the point. I'm not arguing that all of these points are litterally true and can be proven. That's not the point at all. read the original argument




Everything from ripped off plots from earlier myths,



Meta => which ones?


Meta => not a bit hard to figure out, unless you are a Jahonva's Witness.







MEta => that's not a difficuty in the text, that's nothing but your speculation flying in the face of the text!


But all of that is irrelivant, becasue none of that offeres us the kind of alternate story that I'm talking about. Read the orignial argument lined above.

Metacrock

In your tavels around the net have you ever bothered to actually read what people are talking about? Did you actually read my argument? No I doubt it. Anyone can sound like they are really trouncing the oppenent when the oppent isn't there and the reading doesn't know what's being talked about.read the original argument ]why not try actually reading my argument for a change?[/URL]