Vorkosigan

What, precisely, needs explaining? Mark's Jesus is clearly a mythical figure moving in a sacred, imagined landscape; Mark even calls him "the Jesus" rather than referring to him by name. His story is based on the OT testament, particularly the Elijah-Elisha Cycle. There doesn't seem to be any potential history in there, except for certain apostle names, if those are indeed historic, and a few other details.

Matthew had a different Christology. Lower/higher dichotomies don't really accurately capture the difference, but are simply a scholarly way of reference to the issue. Since Matthew copied Mark, Christology isn't a problem for mythicists (or historicists). It's a null issue that relates to the differing theologies of Mark and Matthew.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

I was recently disabused of this notion by mathetes as well as CX. It is apparently not uncommonin to find a definite article before a name in both classical and koine Greek.

Aside from that, I tend to agree that the "more human" depiction of Jesus Mark provides isn't really a problem for mythicists. Within the context of that theory, the author is the first to create a historical narrative for those who believe in the Sacrificed Christ and he appears to have used known miracle-working prophets as his template. Since they were entirely human, it shouldn't come as as surprise that his depiction of Jesus that is based upon them seems quite human. In the opinion of subsequent authors rewriting his story, the author of Mark overdid it.

pierneef

Because Jesus was a Jew living within a Jewish context, and was recognised by many as the Messiah. He was later crucified by the Romans as King of the Jews. That gives the baptism account probablity. There are interpolations in all of the Gospels whose lack of probablity is detected (although not confirmed, of course) by having no or weak historical contextual foundation.

JoeWallack

JW:
Finally, just the Typological person I need to be talking to. Christianity has long been an offensive religion, priMarily interested in arguing why it's supposedly true and not very interested in arguing why it's false which is an Emotional mindset. The Real world outside of religion is an Intellectual world where conclusions are made based on offense and defense. Answers like yours above, which only gives a possible solution for the problem I proposed and ignores possible and even probable reasons why it's an insufficient answer worked well for Christianity for the 1,000 years when arguments were won based on who said theirs the loudest and most threateningly and by how many others repeated it, but doesn't work so well here on the Internet, an Intellectual Forum, where positions stand or fall based souly on their merit and not who's behind them.

Okay, let's compare evidence now for possible answers to my question above:

Magus55:
"Probably because His hometown is a tiny little village that doesn't have much left to it."


JW:
This is possible but I don't believe you have anything other than your Guess to support it. I'm not aware of any Early Christian writings stating that Nazareth was either a tiny little village or that it became a holy ghost town.
What I think you will find in Early Church writings such as Origen's is surprise and diffiCulty in trying to find the historical Jesus.

Now let's look at evidence that subsequent Christianity couldn't find any evidence of Jesus in his supposed hometown because "Mark's" "Nazareth" was a literary invention (fiction):

1) "Mark's" story is primarily about the Impossible which Intellectually, must be Fiction. Can you imagine (rhetorical) a Detective or a Judge or Jury considering that the Impossible was possible? They'd be so embarrassed they'd have to move to Texas. Since "Mark" is Perfectly Willing to report the Supernatural it makes it more likely (exponentially so) that he would also report Possible items that were also Fiction.

2) Regarding Jesus' supposed hometown:

Two important themes of "Mark" are:

1) Jesus was the greatest Healer of all time (of all time).

2) Jesus was largely rejected in his native country.

From a common sense standpoint it would be difficult for "Mark" to plausibly reconcile these two themes. If the historical Jesus was the greatest healer that Israel ever knew it defies logic that he would have been largely rejected in his own country. Let's look at a clear story by "Mark" indicating that Jesus was largely rejected in his own country:

Mark 6: (KJV)
1 "And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching."


JW:
Let's make a list of important assertions here by "Mark":

1) Many in the synagogue were offended that a member of their community had wisdom and healing ability.

2) Jesus says, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

3) Jesus could not do mighty works in quantity "there".

4) Jesus was surprised at the level of unbelief "there".

The assertions in this story have a number of problems all by themselves without comparison to any other story by "Mark". That people in a community would be offended by the Hero being a member of their community is against human nature. Jesus tries to justify this by giving a quote that is apparently otherwise unknown. It's stated that Jesus was surprised by the level of unbelief but the story doesn't say "many" didn't believe, in fact it states that they recognized Jesus' powers. Now let's look at the Healing and Teaching stories that "Mark" gives early in his Gospel:

Mark 1: (KJV)
21 "And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.
23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,
24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.
26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.
27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.
28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
29 And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.
32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils.
33 And all the city was gathered together at the door.
34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.
35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.
36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him.
37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.
38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth.
39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.
40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.
42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed.
43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away;
44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.
2:
1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion."


JW:
And now the contradictions between these individual healing stories and The Prophet Without Honor Story:

1) Jesus teaches in the Capernaum synagogue and people are astonished. Why would people be astonished again in Chapter 6 if they were already astonished in Chapter 1?

2) All present at the synagogue are amazed at Jesus' healing without any negative connotation and Jesus' fame is said to spread throughout his country of Galilee. Yet in Chapter 6 Jesus claims there is unbelief in his country.

3) It's said that the whole city gathers at a house in Capernaum and Jesus heals many without any complaints. In Chapter 6 the people of Capernaum are offended that a member of their city has healing powers.

4) Jesus was said to be so popular in Galilee that it was difficult for him to move around in the cities. In Chapter 6 Jesus states that a Prophet is without honor in his own country.

5) Jesus heals a paralytic in his own house and all appreciate the healing. In chapter 6 Jesus states that a Prophet is without honor in his own house.

In summary, the assertions of the early healing stories are so contradictory to The Prophet Without Honor story of Chapter 6 that it's hard to believe they were written by the same author. To come up with such a clear and significant contradiction regarding Jesus' supposed hometown is evidence that these related stories are based on Fiction as stories based on History are less likely to give this type of contradiction.

3) Regarding the phrase "Jesus of Nazareth" which Christianity takes as evidence of the hometown of Nazareth, the superior translation of the underlieing Greek is "Jesus the Nazarene" which most modern translations refuse to use or even mention as an issue. "Nazarene" was a well known term of Judaism at the time and "Nazarenes" was how Judaism referred to Christians after its start.

4) For a subsequent Christianity that needed to explain why no one in Galilee could tell them about a Jesus who lived in their town Jesus had to be placed in a fictional town where no one could visit and be told that there was never any such person there.

5) Josephus and other authors list a lot of towns in Israel in the first century but not Nazareth.


Now that I've ripped you a New Testament I do appreciate that you have some problems here with X-Uh-Jesus that I don't have like having to consider the Possiblility that I'm The Satan. Along those lines let me say that:

Come on, surely by now you realize that they never wrote em this good. WHO do the son of men say that I Am. :devil3:


Joseph

HOMOEOPATHY, n.
A school of medicine midway between Allopathy and Christian Science. To the last both the others are distinctly inferior, for Christian Science will cure imaginary diseases, and they can not.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

pierneef

Gosh what a lot of energy. The fact that Jesus reponded about the lack of honor in one's own country is not in any way a judgment about his own perceived lack of success. The Jesus Seminar rated this statement as highly probable in authenticity, and explain it like this:

"Mark elaborates on the places where a prophet goes without respect by adding the phrase "among his relatives and at home", no doubt alluding to the story about Jesus' family thinking him mad (Mark 3:20-21; 31-35)

So I dont see these two excerpts as in any way contradictory.

Expecting to find traces of Jesus in Nazareth today, or in Caperneum, or anywhere else he worked, is a hope in a stormy sky. So it carries very little weight as an argument.

Scholars are split as to whether Nazareth existed. Crossan argues that it did.

Amaleq13

I can see where assuming the first two statements might lead one to conclude that a baptism took place but I don't see how that assumption leads to the conclusion that the specific depiction is historical.

Amaleq13

Correct. Those who accept the textual and archeological evidence realize that it is more likely a mistranslation of Mark while those who ignore that evidence think otherwise.

He believes that it did but has no more evidence than anyone else holding the same belief.

Soul Invictus

There was a rejection of Jesus as their Messiah, however this is due to his not meeting the Jewish understanding of what their Messiah would constitute. It doesn't mean that Jesus actually was the Messiah, and yet the Jews failed to accept him.The Jewish concept of a messiah is not the same vein as the Christian thought of the term.

pierneef

I doubt whether there is any type of proof that would confirm that anything in the Gospels contains descriptions of historical incidents, beyong some very broad facts (such as the Romans were there, there were rebellions, etc). Even if there were a movie, it could have been faked; the notes made by eye witnesses could have been doctored. So all we have is the kind of analysis I presented. That is why the word "probably" is used. maybe it should be "possibly". I would have no problem with that.

Can you imagine a standard of proof that would help a reader conclude that any of the various incidents depicted in the Gospels were historical ? I would certainly ne interested in the methdology.

pierneef

Quite correct..the two concepts are very different. The concept of messiah in Jesus circle applied to the Jewish people. Paul reworked it into a concept that both applied to gentiles, and was mystically tied to God in a way that Jesus would have found amazing.

We dont know exactly what happened to his messianic claims because the arrest and trial of Jesus is the most heavily redacted, edited and interpolated section of the Gospels. Once the Roman Empire accepted Christianity, it was imperative to show that it was not the Romans who had killed their God. I know of very few scholars today who believe the account of the Jews rejecting Jesus and demanding his crucifixion. That is very likely what we today would call propaganda. We know that the Saducees were comlicit with their Roman overlords and objected to Jesus' demand that the temple be purified. So it would not be surprising that they participated. But they scarcely represent "the Jews".

I know of no Jewish commentary at the time which called into question Jesus' qualifications to be messiah. His lineage, though Joseph (who must have been his real father because that is how the Gospels present his lineage), went back to David. So Jesus was of royal lineage and therefore ideal to assume the role of messiah. Jews rejected Paul's claim and the subsequent Church's claim that Jesus was literally God's Son, a claim Jesus never made. That was blasphemous and completely foreign to Judaism.

It is not impossible that Jesus lead a popular rebellion against the Romans (we know that he told his followers to arm themselves), was betrayed by Judas, was arrested by the Romans to the great delight of the Saducees, and executed as a rebel fighting for the throne of Judea: he was executed as "King of the Jews". So, in Jewish eyes, his messiahship did not succeed, like many other attempted Messiahships that were crushed by the Romans. In tbis sense, Jesus was not unique. What was unique about him was the strength of his message, and this was kept alive by his followers, especially James his brother, and eventually the Jesus movement was able to take control of the Temple. So it is really absurd to argue that Jesus was rejected by his fellow Jews.

While this was happening, Paul was inventing a new religion for gentiles that claimed to originate with Jesus and his teachings, but also included large quantities of pagan and gnostic beliefs totally foreign to both Jesus and Judaism at that time.