Solitary Man

I disagree. I find your tactics rather rude, but that's a digression. Let's not get personal. Jeffrey already received plenty of personal attacks, which is surprising coming from supposed "rationalists".

But I guess if we have no moral qualms with hypocrisy, if "do unto others as they did to you" is acceptable here, I suppose you're in the clear.

And finally, why aren't the gospels used as evidence for the historical Jesus?

Solitary Man

Toto

Please avoid discussions of relative rudeness. If you find some post to be unbearably impolite, you may report it.

Otherwise, please stay on topic.

Thanks for your consideration

Toto

spin

There are many purposes for writing texts. To understand the purpose of a text you need to know the historical context of that text. This is why I referred to the gospel texts as "undated, unprovenanced, ungenred texts from unknown authorship". Without at least some of these the context cannot be reclaimed. The gospels are obviously some sort of evidence of their time, but we can't say what their time is.

Petronius's Satyricon is also some sort of evidence of its time, but which Petronius was known as Arbiter? When was that text written? Getting in to the significance of that text is very difficult, despite the fact that it can be placed as written somewhere in Italy. We just don't know enough about it, whereas Seneca's "Pumpkinification" provides us with a lot of information which allows it to be contextualized and its purpose understood, a witty heavy-handed attack on the recently dead Claudius. Of course things are helped with the vast amount of external (contemporary) evidence for Claudius.

We construct an array of "fixed points" (think of it as a skeleton) for history usually from archaeological finds, from epigraphy, from coins and whatever else is preserved from the times we are analysing. These provide a contextualization for texts. Some texts fit so much with the skeleton that their relationship with history becomes solid -- think of Polybius or Tacitus. There are still problems with the content of these texts, which historians will endlessly debate, but these texts have been sufficiently contextualized in history through their content that they provide in varying degrees the cartilage and the flesh for our body of history. (I know this is simplified but it should help to understand what is done in the process of history.)

We have a body of history which provides a context for processing information related to the past. We know that texts have very many possible purposes, usually multiple purposes -- just think of Tacitus writing a scathing history of the Julio-Claudians with the aim of supporting himself among the anti-Julio-Claudian political powers of his time. Josephus, besides writing his history was trying to justify his own actions and show himself to be a good Jew, trying to apologize for the Jews, and trying to stimulate a Roman audience under the Flavians. All this helps to understand the texts better.

When we are faced with the gospels, we lack all the tools that allow us to place the works into their contents. We cannot assume their genres. We don't know why they were written. We don't know whether they were written as representative of events thought to have happened, as teaching materials, as religious tracts of their time, as fiction, as combinations of these and other possibilities.

Looking at the gospels themselves we can identify information within them that the writers had no way of obtaining from real-world sources, such as the temptation and Jesus's actions in the garden of Gethsemane and probably the angelic appearance to Joseph, the letter from Pilate's wife, and host of other sections of the narrative. But let's put these aside in an effort to see if there is a historical core, so we discard as those searching for a historical Jesus have done. We've discarded material which may reflect the purpose of those texts. The thing is the texts do not without a context allow us to know how they fit into history. This means that there is no way to understand the significance of the content and what it is evidence of.


spin

Solitary Man

I disagree. These texts have been studied for hundreds of years, surely you don't think that an analysis has not been procured? Luke clearly is trying to be historical, since he models himself from other histories. How do we know that Josephus was trying to be a good Jew? Certainly its from context. Why do you refuse the gospels their context?

You responded with a lot of words, but not much of what you said really meant anything. You don't need to talk condescend, since I am familiar with the processes underlying history. I'm asking you why you exclude the Gospels. Unprovenanced? Why is Mark then assigned to Rome, as I believe you yourself have done?

spin

No such historical analysis has been produced.

You're free to believe whatever you like, but we work from evidence here.

No-one is refusing anything. You are simply assuming your conclusions. Please tell us when they were written? That will help to provide a context. Please tell us who wrote them and what we know about those writers. That will help to provide a context. Please tell us what genre they were. That will help to provide a context.

Can I suggest a reading course to you?

Well, apply them to the gospels. And stop indicating that you are not familiar.

I argue that it came from Rome, many don't. Placing Mark in Rome tends to reduce the possibility of the content being based on fact.


spin

Solitary Man

Would you care to actually say anything substantial which would refute what I said? I am not alone in thinking this: Richard Carrier has an article on it here, already said much of what I could say.

Have you read Streeter's The Four Gospels? He answers with explanations those questions.

Yes! Perhaps then the authors whom you have selected in your reading course might actually tell me something which you seem incapable of doing.

As far as I can see you're the one abusing the processes underlying history. You're excluding primary source material because you don't like them. Either give me real reasons why they shouldn't be accepted, or learn to work with them.

Does it really? Does a Semitic coming from the Levant who moved to Rome and wrote in Greek really reduce the possibility that the content is based on fact? You are assuming your conclusion.

Toto

It is obvious that Luke is writing like a historian. But this does not mean that he is writing actual history. Carrier himself does not claim that there is any history in Luke-Acts, and has now accepted the mythicist hypothesis.


Streeter's work seems to be online here. Could you point to the explanations? How have they stood up over time since they were written in the last century?

But there are many indications that the author of Mark was not at all familiar with the geography of Palestine. What does that do to your conclusion?

spin

I await a historical analysis on the extraction of history from the gospels.

I don't read people's suggestions of books. If you want to deal with primary evidence, please cite it. If you must rehash someone else and then I'll consider it.

You were supposed to have been following this forum. If you had you'd know your assumptions about me are without foundation.

What are the gospels primary source materials of? As long as you cannot contextualize them, you cannot answer the question and that would reflect your knowledge of the processes of history.

Was the writer of Mark Semitic?

I'm glad you liked the phrase. All you need to do now is learn how to use it.

I don't know you from Adam. Why have you decided to pick a fight with me rather than enter into a discussion?


spin

Solitary Man

I didn't say that Luke wrote history. Here's exactly what I said:

spin asked what genre the text was. I responded. He said, without saying anything substantial, that he worked for evidence. Good for him! Perhaps he does. It's not evident from what I've seen in this thread. Usually working from the evidence means that you can draw conclusions from the evidence. spin hasn't done this. He merely has said that he doesn't know the texts' provenance, genre, authorship, dating, etc...

Chapter 17 is the chapter.

I am not your gofer. I cited my references, now you do your homework.

Palestine is not the only place in the Levant. Have you ever given wrong directions before? I don't think I'm the only one who has. Nor am I the only one who has received wrong directions before. Mistakes can happen. With that in mind, what are these indications that "Mark was not at all familiar with the geography of Palestine"? How does this affect my conclusion? To me it doesn't, but perhaps you see something I don't.

Toto

Solitary Man - I gather that English is not your first language? I think we may have some communications problems.

But it appears that you cited Carrier's article to support your position that Luke was trying to write history.

Do you think that Luke was trying to write history as best he or she could; or trying to write something that had the form of history (but might have been propaganda or fiction or something else) ??

And I do not expect you to be a gofer, but I would hope that you see the need to back up your assertions.

And neither am I your gopher - search the archives for the many instances where Mark's story doesn't fit the geography of Palestine.