Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 03-01-2010, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

None of those apply to Mark though.

You are right about the genealogies. It does have tedious narration and long sermons. See Mark 4 and Mark 7, for example. It reads like something that would interest a religious adherent much more than someone looking for entertainment, but it is not impossible for it to have originated as a play.

You assume that the play could not have been for a religious purpose. Why?

dog-on · 03-01-2010, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You are referring to Matthew, Luke and John. I am just referring to Mark.

I think that Mark works pretty well, as a play.

Sure! Somethin you might think about doing is to rewrite the gospel of Mark in play format. The format of a play is where you have alternating lines of speech.

NARRATOR: It is written in Isaiah the prophet, "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way— "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'

JOHN THE BAPTIST: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

[Jesus is baptized by John]

GOD: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

And so on.

Some ancient plays have a certain syllabic rhythm, so you can see if you can find it in the quotes of the gospel. Give the profile of those who first invented it, and tell how it evolved into its present form. Just see if your own theory can compete with the established theory, that Mark was a purely a spoken religious tradition that was passed from the Christian Jews to the Christian Greeks who wrote it down.

When I see some real evidence for Christian Jews, I'll be sure to do just that...

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You are right about the genealogies. It does have tedious narration and long sermons. See Mark 4 and Mark 7, for example. It reads like something that would interest a religious adherent much more than someone looking for entertainment, but it is not impossible for it to have originated as a play.

You assume that the play could not have been for a religious purpose. Why?

No, that would be the best option. If it was a play, then I figure it must have been for a religious purpose, not just for entertainment.

Quote:

When I see some real evidence for Christian Jews, I'll be sure to do just that...

Great! Yeah, if you think there is no evidence for first-century Christian Jews, then you can develop your theory to more easily compete with the establishment.

show_no_mercy · 03-01-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

None of those apply to Mark though.

You are right about the genealogies. It does have tedious narration and long sermons. See Mark 4 and Mark 7, for example. It reads like something that would interest a religious adherent much more than someone looking for entertainment, but it is not impossible for it to have originated as a play.

Well in my opinion, I don't think that Mark is a play. It could have been a play, or it could have been some other form of entertainment. Or it could be theology.

Or it could be allegory. Which is what I think it is - an allegorical attack on the "historical" witnesses; which shares a similar outlook with Markion. I don't think he got that idea from out of thin air.

Quote:

In Mark, Jesus gives Simon the name "Peter" for no reason (3:16). The first parable that Jesus has to explain to his boneheaded disciples is the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:14-20). In this parable, the "word" gets thrown on the "rocky" (ΠΕΤΡΩΔΕΣ:: petrwdes) surface and can't take root: "Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away" (from Mark 4:16-17). Peter received the word with joy at 14:29;31 and then he quickly falls away when trouble starts (14:66-75). Peter is ΠΕΤΡΟΣ (petros) in Greek. Of course, Matthew didn't like this discreditation and elevates Peter (Matt 16:18) using the same pun on the name.

Mark 4 is one of the parts that I think is allegory. At least the first part of it is.

Also, these parables are similar to those found in Thomas (vss 9, 20, 21, 33) and were probably part of the "logia" (sayings) that Papias talks about. Which is probably Q. Therefore it's unlikely that it was a historical speech, but sayings inserted into the text.

And then, Mark 7 is an anachronism; the author mistakenly believing that "all the Jews" washed their hands before a meal prior to 70 CE.

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You are right about the genealogies. It does have tedious narration and long sermons. See Mark 4 and Mark 7, for example. It reads like something that would interest a religious adherent much more than someone looking for entertainment, but it is not impossible for it to have originated as a play.

Well in my opinion, I don't think that Mark is a play. It could have been a play, or it could have been some other form of entertainment. Or it could be theology.

Or it could be allegory. Which is what I think it is - an allegorical attack on the "historical" witnesses; which shares a similar outlook with Markion. I don't think he got that idea from out of thin air.

Quote:

In Mark, Jesus gives Simon the name "Peter" for no reason (3:16). The first parable that Jesus has to explain to his boneheaded disciples is the Parable of the Sower (Mark 4:14-20). In this parable, the "word" gets thrown on the "rocky" (ΠΕΤΡΩΔΕΣ:: petrwdes) surface and can't take root: "Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away" (from Mark 4:16-17). Peter received the word with joy at 14:29;31 and then he quickly falls away when trouble starts (14:66-75). Peter is ΠΕΤΡΟΣ (petros) in Greek. Of course, Matthew didn't like this discreditation and elevates Peter (Matt 16:18) using the same pun on the name.

Mark 4 is one of the parts that I think is allegory. At least the first part of it is.

Also, these parables are similar to those found in Thomas (vss 9, 20, 21, 33) and were probably part of the "logia" (sayings) that Papias talks about. Which is probably Q. Therefore it's unlikely that it was a historical speech, but sayings inserted into the text.

And then, Mark 7 is an anachronism; the author mistakenly believing that "all the Jews" washed their hands before a meal prior to 70 CE.

Great. Whatever your theory may be, the goal should be to explain as much of the early texts as you can with maximum probability. Only then can you hope to replace the established opinions. Anyone can have a weird theory, loosely based on the evidence. "The gospels say that Joseph was a carpenter. Therefore, they were originally recruiting pamphlets for the Galilean Guild of Woodcutters, and it sort of spun itself into a religion from there."

arnoldo · 03-01-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well in my opinion, I don't think that Mark is a play. It could have been a play, or it could have been some other form of entertainment. Or it could be theology.

Or it could be allegory. Which is what I think it is - an allegorical attack on the "historical" witnesses; which shares a similar outlook with Markion. I don't think he got that idea from out of thin air.

Mark 4 is one of the parts that I think is allegory. At least the first part of it is.

Also, these parables are similar to those found in Thomas (vss 9, 20, 21, 33) and were probably part of the "logia" (sayings) that Papias talks about. Which is probably Q. Therefore it's unlikely that it was a historical speech, but sayings inserted into the text.

And then, Mark 7 is an anachronism; the author mistakenly believing that "all the Jews" washed their hands before a meal prior to 70 CE.

Great. Whatever your theory may be, the goal should be to explain as much of the early texts as you can with maximum probability. Only then can you hope to replace the established opinions. Anyone can have a weird theory, loosely based on the evidence. "The gospels say that Joseph was a carpenter. Therefore, they were originally recruiting pamphlets for the Galilean Guild of Woodcutters, and it sort of spun itself into a religion from there."

Here is "evidence" that christianity began as a play.

It became so popular that the audience memorized the lines and acted out the scenes eventually believing that they were the characters.

Zaphod · 03-01-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Are you trying to say that these are secular institutions employing objective scholars, who just happen to be Christians who believe in the HJ? Are you saying that this "large sector" of scholarship has looked objectively at the historicity of JC?

Yes, they do so all of the time, because they need the evidence on their side to advance their own particular models of Jesus and early Christianity.

I don't believe that. Earl Doherty says there is no one in academia rigorously investigating whether Jesus actually exists and I believe him.

You just made an assertion they "they" do so - do you have any evidence or documentation of this, because I am very skeptical.

Indeed, the very topic of this thread touches on the Jesus Project, which was originally proposed as the first high-level rigorous cooperative investigation into the historicity of JC. This program was subverted from within - there was not a single academic who was interested or willing to be part of such an endeavor, and the original research focus which was one of, if not the major raisons d'etre for the project, was scrapped. And this is the so-called liberal wing of biblical scholarship!

So, when you blithely assert that there are many academics who look into this issue, I hope you can see why such a statement demands documentation.

:constern01:

Toto · 03-01-2010, 01:14 PM

OK, now we're getting silly.

PhilosopherJay (Jay Raskin) wrote a book tracing the hypothetical evolution of the Christian myth from a Greco-Roman play, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities. (or via: amazon.co.uk) self published on XLibris. You can check it out. Unfortunately, there are some formatting problems. I don't know if Jay intends to revise or rework the book.

Mark as written does not work as a play, linguistically, but might very well be a story that evolved from a plot that was originally a play.

And when AAbe says

Quote:

To take it a step further, a mythicist may go through the passages of the New Testament and explain them in terms of their own theory--who invented each passage and why--a lot like the way of the Jesus Seminar.

This was not exactly what the Jesus Seminar did. The JS voted on whether the sayings of Jesus were likely to be original or later inventions. A mythicist, of course, would only need to explain the 18% of the sayings that were supposed to be original.

But historicists have actually done much of this work, if you read current NT research.

Quote:

Why was there this myth of John baptizing Jesus? Why was there this myth of Jesus orating so many length parables? Why were the geneologies of Jesus important to these people? Was Peter a real human being? If so, what part did he have in the whole game? What about James? Or Paul? Or John the Apostle? Or Cephas? Why was there a myth of a betrayal by Judas and a crucifixion? I am not asking you to answer all of these questions (please don't right now), but to answer them would be a beginning of giving a "Jesus myth" theory substance.

You can find these answers in current NT literature. The gospel stories can be mapped to themes from the Septuagint and analyzed in terms of Hellenistic legends and philosophy. To be a mythicist, all you need to do is drop the idea that there was a real human at the core of the legend. As Robert Price shows in the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), its legends all the way down. If there was a historical Jesus, there is no more.

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, they do so all of the time, because they need the evidence on their side to advance their own particular models of Jesus and early Christianity.

I don't believe that. Earl Doherty says there is no one in academia rigorously investigating whether Jesus actually exists and I believe him.

You just made an assertion they "they" do so - do you have any evidence or documentation of this, because I am very skeptical.

Indeed, the very topic of this thread touches on the Jesus Project, which was originally proposed as the first high-level rigorous cooperative investigation into the historicity of JC. This program was subverted from within - there was not a single academic who was interested or willing to be part of such an endeavor, and the original research focus which was one of, if not the major raisons d'etre for the project, was scrapped. And this is the so-called liberal wing of biblical scholarship!

So, when you blithely assert that there are many academics who look into this issue, I hope you can see why such a statement demands documentation.

:constern01:

Well, I didn't mean that they look into the issue of whether or not Jesus existed. They generally treat that as an issue that was settled 100 years ago. I mean that they are very much in touch with the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. For them, the relevant question is, "Who was Jesus?" For that, they find ways to extract and separate the probable historical truths from the mere myths and interpolations. I recommend the book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (or via: amazon.co.uk), for an example. It is also a great introduction to critical New Testament scholarship.

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, now we're getting silly.

PhilosopherJay (Jay Raskin) wrote a book tracing the hypothetical evolution of the Christian myth from a Greco-Roman play, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities. (or via: amazon.co.uk) self published on XLibris. You can check it out. Unfortunately, there are some formatting problems. I don't know if Jay intends to revise or rework the book.

Mark as written does not work as a play, linguistically, but might very well be a story that evolved from a plot that was originally a play.

And when AAbe says

Quote:

To take it a step further, a mythicist may go through the passages of the New Testament and explain them in terms of their own theory--who invented each passage and why--a lot like the way of the Jesus Seminar.

This was not exactly what the Jesus Seminar did. The JS voted on whether the sayings of Jesus were likely to be original or later inventions. A mythicist, of course, would only need to explain the 18% of the sayings that were supposed to be original.

But historicists have actually done much of this work, if you read current NT research.

Quote:

Why was there this myth of John baptizing Jesus? Why was there this myth of Jesus orating so many length parables? Why were the geneologies of Jesus important to these people? Was Peter a real human being? If so, what part did he have in the whole game? What about James? Or Paul? Or John the Apostle? Or Cephas? Why was there a myth of a betrayal by Judas and a crucifixion? I am not asking you to answer all of these questions (please don't right now), but to answer them would be a beginning of giving a "Jesus myth" theory substance.

You can find these answers in current NT literature. The gospel stories can be mapped to themes from the Septuagint and analyzed in terms of Hellenistic legends and philosophy. To be a mythicist, all you need to do is drop the idea that there was a real human at the core of the legend. As Robert Price shows in the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk), its legends all the way down. If there was a historical Jesus, there is no more.

I recently received the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (or via: amazon.co.uk) from the interlibrary loan. If Price presents his own theory on what motivated the myth and how it first started, that's wonderful. I should get into it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.