Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ficino · 08-16-2013, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Andrew, you mean that Luke cut the story down to a minimum and John omitted, no?

I think Meier muddies his own waters by his tendency to speak about what "the Church" thought, did, etc. I can understand this from a doctrinal point of view, since he's a Catholic, but from a historian's perspective, one needs to know about the early groupings and leadership structures before one can speak confidently about a purported unitary community.

The story in gMark and gLuke is essentially the same story. In fact, the author of gLuke added details not found in gMark. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was praying when he was baptized and that he was about 30 years old at the time.

gLuke baptism event is an expansion of gMark's

Mark 1

Luke 3

Quote:

21 Now when all the people were baptized , it came to pass , that Jesus also being baptized , and praying , the heaven was opened , 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said , Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.........

As I understand Meier, he holds that "Luke" betrays embarrassment by 1) placing this pericope after the notice of JtB's imprisonment by Herod the tetrarch, out of chronological order; 2) eliding mention of John in the pericope itself.

aa5874 · 08-16-2013, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

As I understand Meier, he holds that "Luke" betrays embarrassment by 1) placing this pericope after the notice of JtB's imprisonment by Herod the tetrarch, out of chronological order; 2) eliding mention of John in the pericope itself.

It is illogical that the author eluded mention of John the Baptist when there is far more "details" about John the Baptist in gLuke than any other Gospel.

The author of gLuke presented an elaborate fable about the conception of John the Baptist which is not found in any other Gospel. See gLuke 1.

andrewcriddle · 08-17-2013, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Meier thinks that Matthew and Luke were embarrassed by the stories (and omitted them). They are also unusual in terms of Mark's typical miracle story in which Jesus performs instantaneous cures by the spoken word alone.

Andrew Criddle

Andrew, you mean that Luke cut the story down to a minimum and John omitted, no?

NO

Sorry if I've caused confusion but this thread has ended up discussing two possible examples of the use of the criterion of embarrassment.

a/ The baptism of Jesus.
b/ The strange miracle stories in Mark 7:31-37 and Mark 8:22-26.

My post was about case b/ but IIUC you thought it was about case a/

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-17-2013, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It seems, Andrew, that you are saying that he would make up an ad hoc set of excuses--none of which is based on anything more than conjecture--to shift the embarrassment as early as possible. Doesn't that sound like a conclusion driven approach!?

As I said in my post, I'm not sure how far Meier would agree with my understanding of the implications of his position.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-17-2013, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What is your problem with "unitary community" or church? The issue is that there were competing Christian factions with disagreements about theology. The orthodox version of history is that there was one true church (unitary) and some insignificant heretics who are best forgotten. Historians who have looked at the remaining records reject this view.

In context to the gospel authors. Do you think there were churches. or just private houses where these people gathered in the first century?

Please read more carefully. The gospel authors do not refer to churches. Meier refers to "the church" by which he only means a gathering of believers, not a church building. Andrew Criddle commented that there was no "unitary community" that could be referred to as "the" church. It doesn't appear that you would disagree with this.

Hi Toto

I think you mean ficino not me.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 08-17-2013, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

a/ Matthew is clearly embarrassed.

Could you quote for us the passages where he expresses embarassment, since it is so clear?

Matthew chapter 3 vs 13-15

Quote:

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

This need for Jesus to explain to a puzzled John why it is right for John to baptize Jesus, indicates that the baptism has become problematic for Matthew and his community.

Andrew Criddle

ficino · 08-17-2013, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Andrew, you mean that Luke cut the story down to a minimum and John omitted, no?

NO

Sorry if I've caused confusion but this thread has ended up discussing two possible examples of the use of the criterion of embarrassment.

a/ The baptism of Jesus.
b/ The strange miracle stories in Mark 7:31-37 and Mark 8:22-26.

My post was about case b/ but IIUC you thought it was about case a/

Andrew Criddle

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!

spin · 08-17-2013, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It seems, Andrew, that you are saying that he would make up an ad hoc set of excuses--none of which is based on anything more than conjecture--to shift the embarrassment as early as possible. Doesn't that sound like a conclusion driven approach!?

As I said in my post, I'm not sure how far Meier would agree with my understanding of the implications of his position.

I thought, with "you are saying that he would", I was indicating that this was your Meier, not necessarily the man himself, and with the rest that somewhere someone was not playing by the rules.

Tenorikuma · 08-17-2013, 09:33 AM

So Meier proves that since Luke is embarrassed by Jesus' baptism, the story must predate Luke.

Truly a staggering intellect.

aa5874 · 08-17-2013, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This need for Jesus to explain to a puzzled John why it is right for John to baptize Jesus, indicates that the baptism has become problematic for Matthew and his community.

Andrew Criddle

When did the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew actually live? What community knew gMatthew and it is author and had problems with the Baptism which is ALSO found in gMark and gLuke??

Surely you must be AWARE that it is not known who wrote gMatthew, when it was composed and where it was known.

In fact, Jesus cult writers claimed that the Baptism of Jesus by John was extremely significant.

No Jesus cult community has ever been identified that was embarrassed by the Baptism fable in gMattthew for over a THOUSAND years.

By the way, the Baptism event in gMatthew as described must have been fabricated.

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

08-17-2013, 09:33 AM	#69
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	So Meier proves that since Luke is embarrassed by Jesus' baptism, the story must predate Luke. Truly a staggering intellect.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.