Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2005, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I like that. For the argument of silence in Paul's writings to have strength we would expect either (a) or (b) above, yet Don has shown that (a) doesn't exist, and mythicists claim that (b) doesn't exist with Mark. As such, mythicists have to get into issues of expectation based on differences in TIMING of those writings with Paul's. I'm not so sure they do so effectively..

This is incorrect because I am not sure that any mythicist position save Doherty's argues for complete mythicism in the first few decades of the second century, and I am not sure that his does. Rather, everyone sees the historicist position as evolving gradually. Hence some historicism should visible in the second century as the HJ evolved out of the MJ.

Quote:

Yes. It may seem like fabrication to us, but can we determine Mark's sincerity? How can we tell if Mark was intentionally writing things he didn't believe literally happened or 'filling in by revelation' details on a life he truly believed existed, based on inspiration he truly believed in?

The sincerity of the writer of Mark are not relevant. You may speculate on them if you please -- I am only interested in the origin of his historical "facts" in Mark. That seems to be either the OT or Paul, in all but a few cases. I note the constant struggle here to make Mark compatible with a historicist position.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2005, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes. Furthermore, if someone was trying to present Jesus as the expected Christ, the only way that could have been done would have been trying to tie him back to the OT, either in actions or in words.

Sure. But that is true of ANY kind of Jesus -- mythical, historical, narrative fictional. Again you simply attempt to defend the axiom that Jesus is history. We know Mark is fiction. Beyond that it is very difficult to go. Mark-as-fiction does not necessarily imply Jesus-as-myth.

Quote:

If someone came to the Jews today and claimed they were the Messiah, I think we'd see the same thing.

It might be interesting to test that by looking at how the lubavitchers present their messiah, rebbe schneerson.

http://www.kingmessiah.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubavitch

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...es/singer.html

Unfortunately it seems that prooftexting is done off the rabbinical writings, not the OT, although I cannot tell for sure. I wish I knew of a good site/work that gave the prooftexts for Schneerson being the messiah.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 08-03-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Sure. But that is true of ANY kind of Jesus -- mythical, historical, narrative fictional. Again you simply attempt to defend the axiom that Jesus is history. We know Mark is fiction. Beyond that it is very difficult to go. Mark-as-fiction does not necessarily imply Jesus-as-myth.

We don't know that Mark was writing fiction. Even if everything was drawn from the OT, then what we could have had by Mark's time is a body of remembered tradition that parallels the OT.

Imagine there were 2 statements about Christ that were remembered. Statement A doesn't have a parallel in the OT, can't be used as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, and so is not passed on. A parallel to Statement B can be found, and so Statement B is recast to make the parallel stronger.

Over 30 years, a body of pericopes develop. Finally, Mark puts them all together for his gospel. Why assume that Mark thought he was writing fiction at all?

As you say, we can't draw "Jesus was historical" from this, and I'm not trying to. But I think the fact that EVERYONE in the 2nd C seemed to assume that Christ was historical, and that we see them using 1st C texts with that understanding, can't be explained using a mythicist model as well as with a historicist model.

Ben C Smith · 08-03-2005, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If someone came to the Jews today and claimed they were the Messiah, I think we'd see the same thing [an attempt to tie him back to the OT].

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It might be interesting to test that by looking at how the lubavitchers present their messiah, rebbe schneerson....

Unfortunately it seems that prooftexting is done off the rabbinical writings, not the OT, although I cannot tell for sure.

Same sport, different ballpark.

freigeister · 08-03-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In Mark the details all appear to be invented off of the OT.

Please elaborate. Is this a rejection of a pagan origin for Mark's Gospel? Wherein exactly lies the distinction which allows acceptance of Hillel's historicity through the Talmud yet denies acceptance of Christ's historicity through the Gospels? Would you claim that, because it mythologizes Hillel, the Talmud is fiction? Would you claim that whoever wrote down the Talmud knew nothing of a historical Hillel?

Quote:

A fictional Mark simply says that nothing about the HJ may be known from Mark, except what we know from Paul (my position, BTW).

But, because you first claim that Paul knows nothing of a human Jesus, you load the dice, don't you? What makes you believe that Mark draws on Paul at all, let alone exclusively? Why not the simple answer: that Mark is an occasional transcription of originally orally transmitted Gospels that existed independently of Paul?

Ben C Smith · 08-03-2005, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

What makes you believe that Mark draws on Paul at all, let alone exclusively?

Pretty good arguments have been advanced, not least by Vorkosigan himself, that Mark knew (some of) the epistles of Paul. Not all the points at that link are of equal weight, but the theological issues (such as food laws and the gentile mission stuff) seem fairly heavy to me. Certain parts of Mark just read better in a Pauline context, a mileau in which the readership has been softened up by Pauline theology and praxis.

Ben.

Amaleq13 · 08-03-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

What makes you believe that Mark draws on Paul at all, let alone exclusively?

I think you will find at least part of Vorkosigan's answer in this thread that he created on the subject:

Mark Knew Paul: Here's the DNA

freigeister · 08-03-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I think you will find at least part of Vorkosigan's answer in this thread that he created on the subject:

Mark Knew Paul: Here's the DNA

Textual patterns can be detected in many ways, but they do not necessarily prove causal relationships. The tendency is to find what one seeks viz. The Bible Code. The approach seeks to assert a decisive overturning of a well-established understanding on the basis of an idiosyncratic, not to say tendentious, correlation of textual structures. As such, it cannot persuade.

Toto · 08-11-2005, 12:42 PM

As noted in another thread, Earl Doherty has written a rebuttal to GakuseiDon's article.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/CritiquesGDon.htm

From Doherty:

Quote:

I would like you to issue a challenge from me that people read this response as readily as they read GDon's critique, especially people like Layman and Peter Kirby, who seemed to treat it like a dagger in the heart of mythicism. It is anything but that, and my response includes a lot of new discussion and insight into the whole question of the second century apologists. I deal with GDon's arguments--all of them--in good detail, including his contentions about my purported insufficient knowledge of writers like Tertullian. It seems to me that when something like GDon's critique is posted, many of those eager to praise and discuss it end up ignoring what I say in response. I will be challenging Kirby to post my article on his ChristianOrigins website if he . . posts GDon's.

Peter Kirby · 08-11-2005, 01:23 PM

Hmmm... does Doherty want his article on my site, or (more likely) a link? I am happy to do either or both.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

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

08-11-2005, 01:23 PM	#50
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hmmm... does Doherty want his article on my site, or (more likely) a link? I am happy to do either or both. best wishes, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.