Diogenes the Cynic

Forty years was just long enough to make people feel as though the last few living witnesses of Jesus were about to drop dead, and a feeling of "fulfillment" would have been greatly facilitated by the destruction of the Temple.

I think the problem with your argument is that you think forty years is too long to credibly represent the range of a living "generation" for Mark's audience. I think it's the perfect amount of time for them to feel like it was coming to an end. After all, we're talking about hypothetical witnesses who would only have been in their 60's and 70's, not in their 100's. Living to a ripe old age was not the norm in ancient times but not so uncommon that a few old birds would not be expected to make it that long. I actually think that people would have felt that 20 or 30 years was not long enough.

jjramsey

Given that "Son of Man" is probably a reference to Daniel, the coming of the kingdom and the coming of the Son of Man are most likely the same thing. Diogenes is right in that "son of man" was originally a poetic way of describing a man, which is why it is in Daniel in the first place. That a Jew would have taken this symbol for Israel out of context to make it refer to a Messiah doesn't seem so unlikely, though, especially since as king, the Messiah would be representing Israel. It also would not surprise me if Jesus used it as a deliberately enigmatic title for himself. It's not as if cult leaders have never implied (or done more than that!) exalted claims for themselves.

Actually, "Son of Man" looks like a fossil itself. It is left unexplained, and it doesn't square well with the higher Christology of Paul, yet it is retained.

Vorkosigan

Abe, you can't be serious. Chris Price is the former poster here known as Layman, a bog-standard apologist without no interest in good-faith arguments. He's so terrified of the Christ-Myth that he took over the Jesus Myth page at Wiki in order to stop anyone from posting rational arguments about it -- he even slyly linked the Christ-Myth to Communism, hilariously. The arguments he gives are garbage that a five year old on crack could dispose of while in a drunken stupor.

The reality is that last year a third party offered $5K to stage a debate on the Jesus Myth in the Fourth R, the Jesus' Seminar's non-peer reviewed publication. The editor nixed this -- saying, comically, that skeptics can't be convinced by evidence. ROFL! This in a field where you can seriously argue that a human being was the actual son of a Canaanite sky diety and be accepted as a scholar while doing so, and attacked for advocating an a priori when you point out that real scholars don't argue for magic sky fairy powers. On the Bib Studies list, where I post, the list moderator stages personal attacks on me from time to time for being a Christ-Myther, and then suppresses my replies. The entire field is run this way -- you should have seen the attacks on Christ Mythers that broke out on XTALK back when the James ossuary was first revealed. None of the list mods, nor the posters, ever apologized either. Or changed the list protocols. NT studies is pretty good on most topics, but on this one the boundaries are established with barbed wire, not rational argument.

Because the field cannot deal with the Christ Myth except to break out into furious attacks on anyone who advocates it -- accusations of Creationism, comical coming from a field without reliable historical methodologies -- or accusations that mythicists are in it for the money -- see work of Strobel, McDowell, etc -- at the moment, it is clearly not possible to get a peer-reviewed Christ-Myth advocating article in any New Testament publication (and a field where you can be punished simply for being an atheist (see Gerd Ludemann's case) is not one where anyone can argue for the Christ Myth).

Price, of course, knows this. But you won't see that mentioned anywhere on his website. Good faith? Don't make me laugh.

What should clue you in, ApostateAbe, to the real conditions is that while non-Christian scholars have widely robust views of the historicity of Jesus, Christian scholars have a uniform position. In other words, among individuals not under doctrinal controls, a number of positions have emerged, just as there might be in any field where evidence is scant and possibilities numerous. But in the sector where individuals submit to the dominance of the minds of others, there is only one view.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

No, I'm suggesting that the author created a scene in his story in which the central figure of his readers' religion is depicted as making a prophecy that was intended to be meaningful for that audience. Authors tend to write stories for their intended readers even when the characters in them are depicted as providing information to others in the story.

The story was written for a specific group of readers and the messages within it are intended for their edification/enjoyment/enlightenment.

jjramsey

The only places that I have seen the Jesus-myth stuff taken seriously is in specifically atheistic circles like Internet Infidels. You don't even have the excuse that biblical scholarship is a religious field that squeezes the secularists out. Inerrancy has gone by the by in much of biblical scholarship, and nontheists like James Crossley and Michael Goulder are very much a part of the field. If anything, the field has quite a few "crypto-atheists" who are nominally religious, but write stuff that would make the people in the pews blanch.

And creationist Kent Hovind had a $250,000 offer for evidence for evolution. Given that I've seen Jesus-mythers on XTalk being compared to creationists, maybe the editor decided that they were worth being taken seriously as Hovind.

I don't think you missed much. A big problem with the allegory idea is there are no hints in the Gospel of Mark of what the referents in the allegory are. That the author of the Gospel of Luke, which purports to be historical, used the Gospel of Mark as a source suggests that it was not considered an allegory by its contemporaries.

Vorkosigan

I don't dispute any of this. I focused on the reasons why. Reasons you ignored in your reply.

You're comparing two different things. (1) Scientists possess sound methodologies for determing scientific facts and conclusions. NT scholars do not. (2) Hovind's is not only the payer but also the judge of the claim. Doherty was willing to argue in a non-juried publication, paid by a third party, and adjudicated by the community of scholars. The former is a publicity stunt, the latter was a third party who contacted both The Fourth R and Doherty.

Also, you seem to have ignored the fact that in NT studies you can argue that Jesus really was the son of the Canaanite sky god who rose from the dead and be accepted as a scholar. In other words, you can't argue that he is a myth, but you can argue that he was a god. Say what?

Finally, jjramsey, I am calling you out right now. Either stage a debate with me, now about methodology in NT studies, call in someone who can, or shut up. Because from now on, every time you equate the Jesus Myth with Creationism, however indirectly, I'm going to point out that you're a coward whose knowledge of the topic an ant would starve to death on.

Resolved: NT testament scholars lack the sound methodological footing required to claim that Jesus Mythers are like Creationists.

I am willing to stage this debate on the forum of your choice. We can tinker with the wording of the resolution. But put up -- or shut up.

Wrong, of course. You just have to let the gospel talk to you, instead of demanding that it adhere to some a priori notion you have of what it is -- like history, for example. There are certainly hints there.

ROFL. Or it suggests that the writer of Luke concealed his knowledge of what Mark was, or that he himself did not know. Or that he had specific goals and didn't give a shit. Or many other things. But clearly the person who added the angel and the extra Septaugint language to the Gethsemane scene in Luke knew perfectly well that it was fiction constructed by paralleling a source text.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe

That argument might hold if it were not for this verse right here:

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." -- Matthew 23:36

That seems to lower the upper limit. The prophecied events are not upper-limited for when the last old codgers of Jesus' generation are about to croak, because that would be when the generation they lived in would be done and a new generation has taken over.

Also see this verse right here:

"And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." -- Mark 14:62

Jesus was talking to a high priest in that one, who would have to be an old-timer.

ApostateAbe

That makes sense, sure, but when I said, "The 'Son of man' could refer only to the Messiah, and Jesus and his cult pretended to fulfill the Messianic prophecies." I was referring to the mention of that title in Mark 14:62 (and Matthew 26:64), which says, "And ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Who could that refer to besides Jesus himself? It was actually a response to the interrogation from the high priest, "Are you the Christ (or Messiah), the Son of the Blessed One?" Perhaps the phrase, "son of man" can refer to anyone depending on the context, but the meaning seems clear in this context.

ApostateAbe

OK, thanks for informing me of that.

Vorkosigan

Careful. There are good arguments that the phrase is (a) interpolated or (b) parenthetical from writer to reader.

Vorkosigan