Diogenes the Cynic

I'm only saying what Casey says. I'm not vouching for anything. I don't know. I think his Jesus of Nazareth is naive in some ways (like he thinks that Joseph had a "carpentry business," and he believes Jesus went to the cross intentionally and other stuff), but I do think he some insights into underlying Aramaic for some of the oldest pericopes, and I actually think he has some interesting things to say about the "healer/exorcist" aspects of Mark.

To clarify a little more about the sources, he thinks Mark was working with multiple, disparate sources, some in Aramaic, some translated into Greek from Aramaic. Casey basically thinks there was some kind of Aramaic sayings compilation ala Papaias' description of Matthew, and that this original source was variously copied, distributed, added to and translated, that Mark took this collection of post it notes (which Casey says could have been either wax or papyrus, but the reason he mentions wax in particular is because he says that the script can become distorted in wax, and certain mistranslations he believes he can perceive from Aramaic to Greek are caused, he says, by this or that letter being indistinct in wax), and composed an original narrative with it. It is Casey's position that sometimes Mark translated sources, sometimes he copied sources which had already been translated by others, and sometimes he was making things up

aa5874

gMark as found written in any language is TOTAL Fiction and implausible with respect to the supposed Jesus character and his activities.

dog-on

That is clear. Thanks.

Toto

We are all skeptics here, to various degrees.

Those of us who have been around know the basis for Vorkosigan's claims, which are not unsupported.

Early Christians were a small enough group that it would not take a massive conspiracy to standardize their sacred literature.

mountainman

And the later Nicaean Christians were supported by the victorious imperial barbarian driven army which was well organised enough that it would not take a massive conspiracy to standardize the sacred literature that was to be published by its Commander, and issued to, and preserved within, the Roman empire.

aa5874

Please present the source of antiquity that supports Vorkosigan's claims.

There is no evidence that so-called gMark was written as sacred literature or was written for religous purposes.

JonA

Reading on I have come to Doherty's argument against the early Chrsitians believing in an historical Jesus on the basis of the language they used to talk about what we could call the 'Second Coming'.

Earl argues that since the earliest Christian writers never describe Jesus' apocalyptic arrival as a return—a second coming—these Christians did not, in fact, believe it was a second coming but instead a first coming; the implication here being that these authors could not then have believed Jesus to have already been a living being who walked the earth.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):

If readers can free themselves from Gospel preconceptions, they should find that these and other references of the same nature convey the distinct impression that this will be the Lord Jesus' first and only coming to earth, that this longing to see Christ has in no way been previously fulfilled. We keep waiting or the sense of "return" or the simple use of a word like "again." We wait for these writers to clarity, to acknowledge, that Jesus had already been on earth, had begun the work he would complete at the Parousia (his "coming" at the End-time); that men and women had formerly witnessed their deliverance in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection; that he had been "revealed" (one of Paul's favorite words in speaking of the Parousia) to the sight of all in his incarnated life as Jesus of Nazareth. But never an echo of such ideas do we hear in the background of these passages.

Perhaps the most telling reference of them all is Hebrews 10:37:

"For soon, very soon (in the words of scripture) 'he who is to come will come and will not delay.' "

This is from Habakkuk 2:3 (LXX). The prophet was referring to God himself, but by the Christian period this was one of those many biblical passages reinterpreted as referring to the Messiah. Indeed, the Greek participle erchomenos, which the Septuagint (LXX) employs, became a virtual title, used with a masculine article, "the Coming One," and referred to the expected savior figure who would arrive at the End-time. Hebrews is clearly using it as a reference to Christ. (p. 50)

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Mr. Doherty gets rather hung up on the word erchomenos because it doesn't make a clear reference to a second coming. As Doherty argues, the author of Hebrews should have used language reflecting his belief that Jesus' apocalyptic coming was a return if, indeed, he believed it was a return—that Jesus had already been on earth once before. Paul, too, uses a word to speak of Christ's arrival, parousia, that presents no implication of an initial visit to earth by Jesus. And so we must ask ourselves, says Doherty, whether or not these authors actually believed in an historical Jesus if the language they use seems to leave no room for the existence of a Jesus that already walked the earth. But is this really the case? Did these authors really not believe Jesus to have already come to earth once before? Is that why they use language apparently ignorant of an initial visit?

One way to address this is to look at the language used in Christian writings elsewhere to reference the Second Coming, in particular, those authors who clearly do believe in an historical Jesus. How do these folks talk about the Second Coming? If they use words and phrases that clearly describe Christ's apocalyptic coming as a return, then Doherty really does have an interesting point. But if their language appears as ignorant of a first coming as that of Paul and the author of Hebrews, then Doherty's argument falls flat—we clearly wouldn't be justified concluding that they may not have believed in an historical Jesus on grounds of their wording here since even folk who clearly did believe in an historical Jesus used the same wording. So what do we find?

In the gospel of John, Jesus is reported as saying: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" (Jn 21:22). The word used here for 'come' is the same word used in the Hebrews passage quoted by Doherty, erchomai. John clearly believed in an historical Jesus—a Jesus who had already come to earth. Yet he fails to use language indicative of this belief when talking about the apocalyptic return of Christ.

The two men in white robes in Acts state: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). Again, the word used here for 'come' is erchomai—the same word as used in John and Hebrews.

These Christians, who certainly believed in an historical Jesus, use the same language to talk about Christ's Second Coming as the author of Hebrews. Repeatedly this word is used as a reference to the return of Jesus (for another gospel example: Mt 16:27–28). Clearly the use of this word, erchomai, to reference Jesus' eschatological arrival cannot be used to rule out an author's belief in a first coming of Jesus.

Paul's language is also echoed in the writings of Christians who clearly believed in Jesus as an historical individual. In Matthew, the disciples ask Jesus: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (Mt 24:3). The word used for 'coming' in this passage is parousia: the same as what Paul uses in his first epistle to the church in Corinth:

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
1 Corinthians 15:23 (NRSV):

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming [parousia] those who belong to Christ.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

Paul doesn't use any wording to clarify that this coming will be a return or second coming; but neither does Matthew, and he clearly did believe in an historical Jesus.

Based on these observations, then, it would appear as though it was common practice for early Christians to use rather plain language in describing the Second Coming of Jesus, language that was not specific in indicating whether the coming of Christ was a first coming or a second coming. The conclusion that Paul and the author of Hebrews are not likely talking about a second coming simply because they do not specifically say so cannot stand; the way they talked about Christ's apocalyptic arrival is simply the way all Christians talked about it, whether they clearly believed in a first coming or whether their beliefs on a first coming are in question.

The language used by Paul and the author of Hebrews when talking about the Second Coming cannot be used to build a case against their belief in an historical Jesus.

Jon

Toto

It is not so clear to me that the gospel writers believed in a "historical Jesus." They worked from traditions or their imagination in which Jesus represented some principle, but if their language did not establish that he had ever been on earth, why should we assume that they believed in the same sort of historical Jesus that modern scholars are trying to locate?

I think you are importing the modern post-Enlightenment version of the historical Jesus back to the first century, without any evidence that any early Christian ever believed in such an entity.

Vorkosigan

Didn't say that. Said that part of it has been deleted, new stuff added. In chaps 6 -- 11.

Didnt say that either.

The claim that the central portion of Mark has been redacted is an accepted part of mainstream Mark research. Very clear from the manuscript itself, and from Luke and Matthew.

This means that our surviving copies of Mark come from that manuscript line. No conspiracy necessary, just the inevitable result of tampering and redacting that almost all long manuscripts in antiquity were subject to.

It would be a good idea if you cracked open a textbook.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see how Luke could have been any clearer about establishing a historical time and place. He gives an exact year.