This is obviously a strong argument for accepting a real person behind the Robin Hood saga.

fG

Nomad,

You keep on making a number of points which I can't really place.

You imply that we should use content and context when interpreting an ancient text. I have in principle no problem with that.

In the case of Mark, however, the whole point is that we know so little of the context. We don't know who wrote it; we don't know when it was written; we don't know where it was written; we don't know for whom it was written; Moreover, I gather there are indications that the author was not even a Jew.

(BTW, I got this info from our friend Bede's nice website )

Also, why do you maintain that Mark says that Jesus is God? We have been over this - please show me the reference.

In all honesty, I think your embarrasment criterion may work in certain conditions, but I think this particular case is shrouded in so many uncertainties that it loses all force here.

I am not a mythicist, but I think there are far stronger arguments out there than this one - in particular, those unconnected with the texts of the gospels. Why do you cling to it so fanatically?

fG

Would you like to go through these questions in depth fG? I do not think that we need be as pessimistic about them as you sound here, but think that such a discussion falls outside the scope of this thread.

I will be happy to go through it with you, however.

Yes it is. Perhaps he will even be able to join in the discussion. I already know that he and I do not agree on everything, so comparing views may be beneficial.

Mark is, even with my own dating of 55-60AD, writing in the context of a Church founded by Peter and Paul and the other apostles. All of the evidence we have from these sources shows a Church that accepts Jesus as God as fact. Moving the dating of Mark to a more traditional 66-75AD only makes this context more certain.

Further, within the text itself, we have Jesus forgiving sins, and claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath. NONE of these things would be possible, in a Jewish setting, if Jesus were a mere man.

Finally, I think you are trying to read Mark the way we would read John, and the two authors had very different agendas. Mark wanted to focus on the power of Jesus, almost certainly to give comfort to readers who felt persecuted by the world around them. John took a much more "cosmological" view, wishing to show Jesus as pre-existent, an issue that is (at least from the text) of no interest to Mark at all. Just because an author does not focus on the same issues does not mean that he falls outside of the mainstream of 1st Century Christian thought, and to suggest that Mark did not see Jesus as God would definitely be making such an argument.

If you wish to demonstrate that Mark only saw Jesus as strictly a human being, then I would need to see the evidence laid out, then we could discuss it. But I should warn you, do not be confused by the writings and beliefs of the 2nd to 4th Century Ebonionites. Mark offered them little comfort, and as a result they discarded it in favour of their own Gospel to the Hebrews.

I assure you, I am not fanatical about this issue fG. I am very comfortable with the arguments put forward by the experts in history and NT studies, and do believe that the reaction of the Jews of Jesus' day as well as today confirm the overall embarrassment (to those Jews) of many of Jesus' actions and words.

The baptism and crucifixion easily remain the biggest two embarrassments of all for these people, and I believe the Jews when they point to these events and say that for them, they prove that Jesus is not the Messiah.

For a good Jewish perspective on this issue, you may want to take a look at:

Jesus the Jew : A Historian's Reading of the Gospels by Geza Vermes

Resurrection of Jesus : A Jewish Perspective by Pinchas Lapide

The latter book is out of print, but should be available in a good library. Interestingly, Lapide accepts the historicity of the Resurrection, yet denies that this makes Jesus the Messiah. Vermes is more sceptical, but also gives a number of reasons why he does not accept that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.

I really do encourage you to examine this issue from the Jewish point of view. This is where you will see how the events of Jesus' life, and especially the baptism and crucifixion are too embarrassing to be acceptable to them. This is, in large measure, why I chose them as being two of the most powerful arguments for an historical Jesus.

Nomad

Sorry Nomad, I am not really interested in a further discussion with you on the ins and outs of the gospels.

As others have pointed out, the things are a hodgepodge of history, theology, redactions and god knows what. In the absence of any realistic hope that anyone will ever be able to definitively separate the various ingredients and facts from fiction, I see it as a supreme waste of time to discuss this topic any further.

Regards,

fG

Here' all that you have to do in order to demonstrate that the event was not embarrassing to the evangelists:

Show that 1st Century Jews expected the Messiah to be baptized or to be subject to anyone besides God. Do that, and then you will have made your case. Try not to be so credulous about what 3rd Century sources like the Ebonionites thought (or 21st Century ones for that matter) please.

As usual, Nomad, you have evidentiary requirements exactly backward. The existence of the story in Mark demonstrates that Mark, and by inference other early Christians, felt that the Baptism was not a theological problem.

It is up to you to show that for all Christianities of the period in which Mark was writing, the baptism was a problem. You're the one asserting here, not I.

Michael

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited May 28, 2001).]

Actually, from what I've been told, there is a real person behind the Robin Hood myths. As well as Little John. The problem for the myths telling true story is- Robin Hood and Little John existed more than a centure apart from eachother. So, no archery contests or anything like that...

Probably the same with Jesus. No healing of lepers and resurrections...

Umm... are you saying that because something is included in the Gospels, it is, by definition, not embarrassing to Christianity or the evangelists?

This is a very interesting line of reasoning. I wonder if it would work with the bulk of the sceptics here.

Since you have made a positive assertion, that the Gospel stories are, by definition, not embarrassing (because the evangelists recorded them), then you are expected to offer some evidence that people never report embarrassing episodes in their writings.

I will look forward to your proof.

Thanks,

Nomad

There may well be a real person behind Robin Hood. It would, however, be totally silly to use his reported (embarrassing) encounter with Little John as evidence for that possibility.

fG

My biggest problem with using embarrassment as a check for validity of a story is that a great many Urban Legends rely upon embarrassment, yet that obviously doesn't lend any credibility to them being true.

Well you're making progress, Nomad. Almost there. Michael's point is simple (and obviously correct). Something that appears in the Gospels may be presumed not to have been considered by the authors to have been an embarrassment. Of course, that's a rebuttable presumption, so your "challenge" misses the point.