Ben C Smith

Let me lay out several kinds of ancient writing and see which kind you think the gospels match the best:

1. Ordinary biography (most of Plutarch, for example, or Agricola by Tacitus).
2. Heroic biography (biographies of Romulus, Empedocles, Hercules, Apollonius).
3. Straight history (the Annals by Tacitus, the Roman History by Dio Cassius).
4. Hellenistic fiction (the Ephesian Tale and others).

When you say that the evangelists are historians, are you saying that they are writing in category 3 above? Or what exactly?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Water baptism. To anoint the messiah is very scriptural, but water baptism (for repentance of sins, no less), even if viewed as such an anointing, is not.

Crucified messiah. Sure, we can draw most of the passion narrative out of a few psalms and prophets (taken out of context), but the very idea that the messiah would be crucified is not there.

Simon of Cyrene. I once asked for explanations of this character (and characters are elements of narratives), and it was generally agreed that no very good precedent exists in the scriptures.

The messiah as exorcist. There are Jewish precedents, I think, but not in the scriptures.

Various sayings which look Cynic, not Hebrew.

Ben.

aa5874

Maybe you haven't read Mark yet. But in Mark, Jesus of Nazareth was presented as some kind of god or supernatural being who talked to and recognised demons.

Mark 5.11-13 Mark 9.2 Mark 15.5-6 Your understanding of Mark appears to be erroneous, Jesus was presented as some type of god that could rise.

mountainman

C14 gThomas = 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years)
C14 gJudas = 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years)

These above two are of course non canonical gospels.
I dont think we have a C14 citation for the canon.
Constantine's bible of 331 CE is a literary event.
Three major Greek Codices of the BIble are 4th century

All this gives you almost 300 years to play "history with".
QUESTION: Where does one start?
ANSWER: One option only available, called Eusebius.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

schilling.klaus

The canonical gospels are of a fake christianity, they Judaise pre-Catholic christianity which is gnosis and eclectic hellnenic philosophic of religion.
The Scriptural elements are usually superficial and out of context, in order to feign that Christianity were based on the Old Testament while it isn't. Many get fooled by this.

Klaus Schilling

paarsurrey

Hi

I wouldn't have believed in historicity of Moses or OTBible; similarly historicity of Jesus , Mary and NTBible; it is only because all these have been mentioned in Quran that I believe these persons or scriptures existed historically. GodAllahYHWH, the Creator of this Universe, is sufficient for witnessing. This does not mean that I don't value History or Science,in fact I value them very much as they both support QuranicRevelation and don't contradict it.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

andrewcriddle

Hi Ben

Just out of interest, which category would you put the Alexander Romance in ?

Andrew Criddle

schilling.klaus

The Quran is just a book of political propaganda, and it holds no water concerning the history of Christianity.

Klaus Schilling

Headache

"I lie when my religion no longer matches reality!" is what you are telling me.

You do it the wrong way, when science and reality disagree with your religious book, it is not reality that is wrong, but your book!

CountryPreacher

Toto - Forgive me for not going back through the volumn of posts about this subject and I refrain for two reasons. I just don't have the time, but also, I want my points to be mine for good or ill.

In answer to "Mark can be traced to the Hebrew Scriptures, Why is Mark at all historical?" seems to state the obvious for what purpose? Of course the Scripture of the day was The Hebrew Scripture. Jesus read from it and believed in keeping the "Law." If Mark is dependent on that body of work it is only to the extent that the "Past is Prologue" for everyone.

I would suggest that "THE PROBLEM" is that you (the royal - all inclusive) attempt to make Mark a history book and that was not its purpose. I alluded to that in my former post about "primary" source material.

"Mark's purpose was accordingly not historical or biographical, but it was intensely practical." Frederick C. Grant - Former Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, NY

To say the purpose is not historical does not deny that it can be used as an historical resource and that is my point. Is Mark unusual as an historical source? Of course! Can you throw Mark out as being historically not valid? Not to my way of thinking, or for that matter the overwhelming majority of Biblical Scholars today. (I discount any fundamentalist - they are unscholarly)