Vorkosigan

I think you misunderstood the question. Novels are known in ancient Judaism (Joseph and Asenath, a novel probably written in Greek probably dates from this time, for example). I asked whether you knew that.

In any case the Gospels are fictions from the diaspora -- where there were many Jews in hellenistic culture. Novelistic fictions are known from all over the ancient mediterranean from this period, and the Jews were certainly aware of them.

I am sorry. I literally do not understand what you are saying here.

Well, what we're arguing about is whether there are in fact indications of his existence....although I admit that for sociological reasons the burden of proof does indeed fall upon the mythicist.

Well, I could trundle out a slew of scholarly quotes. But it is telling that in order to understand their own texts, the Jews had to translate them into Greek. What does that tell you?

And yes, in many cases Hellenized Jews incorporated local religious practices into their own. They read Greco-Roman classics, and incorporated their philosophies into understanding their own texts and religion. Like Philo, for example.

I didn't say it was Greek, but Jewish.

You're very confused. (1) the two powers in heaven is no evidence one way or the other about Hellenistic Judaism. (2) the gospels are not Greek Hero novels (what's that?)

Given that Mark appears to know little or nothing about Judaism, and so Matthew has to correct him, it appears that the writer of Mark was a non-Jew writing from outside Palestine. For Matt the evidence is more equivocal. The idea that the gospels are from outside Palestine is pretty mainstream.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

For sure! They were just a friendly reminder.

All the best,

Vorkosigan

ynquirer

No, I didn’t misunderstand the question. “… a novel probably written in Greek probably dates from this time, for example.� Is this your best example? What kind of evidence is this? And no, I didn’t know of Joseph and Asenath; thanks.

Conjectural. See below.

The questions is not whether novelistic fictions were known all over the Mediterranean and whether the Jews were aware of them, but rather whether if they appreciated those works of fiction written by Greeks. Is there any evidence thereof? I mean – novels found in either Jewish tombs or other archeological sites?

I am sorry. This was your point:

And my comment: Mythicists typically put the cart before the horse. As gospels written in the second century are more convenient for them, they just suppose that all the gospels are second-century produce – with no evidence at all. There is evidence, both external and internal, that places Mark no much later than the first Jewish war.

Coming from you, that’s enough for me.

It quite clearly tells that, after the conquest by Alexander, Hebrew decayed as an everyday language to be reduced to a liturgical one, likewise Latin decayed in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. On the other hand, it also tells that Jewish priests and scholars were as far-sighted as to realize that translating the Tanakh into the Septuagint was the sole means to preserve their religion – in which attempt they succeeded!

This is more difficult for me to swallow. For one thing is to adopt foreign philosophies – this the Jews have used to do from Philo’s Platonism to Spinoza’s rationalism and beyond – in order to adapt their religion to changing times, and quite a different one to bow before foreign gods. They learned Greek language, translated the scriptures into Greek language and learned Greek philosophy so as to preserve their identity by using their main asset, namely, intelligence.

Wasn’t it Zoroastrian in origin?

Provided that the hypothesis is that Hellenism was paramount among the Jews, the finding of only a two-power theology in competition with monotheism is evidence adverse to the hypothesis.

Oh, sorry. Greek Hero novels are fictional narratives cast on the template of the Odyssey (Odysseus = the Greek Hero par excellence). I agree that the gospels are not such narratives.

It comes to a big surprise that so a careful reader of Mark as you are has taken no notice that the writer of Mark commits too many errors as to take him seriously in reference to this. Let me tell you about a conspicuous example – there are many more, as many as to open a new thread on the topic to last for long.

Have Mk 1:2. The RSV reads:

2:As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;

There is no verse in Isaiah to say that. Commentators usually refer the mention of Isaiah to verse 3:

3: the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight -- "

which faithfully paraphrases Isaiah 40:3.

Verse 2 is problematic. Most modern versions of the Bible link it to Malachi 3:1 ("Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple, and etc�), which entails a misquotation by the writer of Mark. Therefore, mainstream would be in agreement with you that Mark has a poor knowledge of the scripture. Do you really believe that?

He actually knew the scripture better than you and me and all mainstream. Look, the Greek wording of verse 2, according to the Greek New Testament by B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini and B.M. Metzger, finds almost an exact match in the Septuagint, Exodus 23:20. This has passed by unnoticed because of the usual English translation of both verses. Thus, the RSV – following KJV – reads Ex 23:20 as follows:

20:"Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and etc.

Certainly, aggelos may be translated into either “messenger� – as in Mark – or “angel� – as in Exodus.

Yet the point is that, if one thinks that Mark misquotes Malachi, it is more or less acceptable for Mark to have Isaiah supersede this rather minor prophet. Moises at Exodus is quite a different thing. For unknown reasons Mark decided to cite Isaiah and omit any reference to Moises – to conceal his knowledge of Exodus and look like ignorant of Judaism? We really don’t know.

In any event I would recommend you to read “Persecution and the Art of Writing,� by a Jew, Leo Strauss, writing on the Jewish motives to conceal the actual purpose of a particular writing. You don’t need to be a “neocon� to enjoy this masterpiece of hermeneutical skills.

For one reason, I am prone to think that the gospel of Mark was precisely written in Palestine.

The idea that the gospels are from outside Palestine is pretty mainstream.

As can be inferred from the previous paragraphs, I don’t worship mainstream. Mainstream may be as wrong as any one of us may. I think one must critique mainstream whenever one believes mainstream to be wrong. What I don’t find palatable is to critique mainstream just because it is mainstream.

Diogenes the Cynic

What difference does it make? The Gospels are not Jewish books. They are Greek books written for gentile audiences.

ynquirer

In another thread you have recently written this:

Provided that the first appearance of claims for a physical resurrection of Jesus in the Christian literature, aka the gospel of Mark, was not a Jewish book, that’s a pretty extraordinary success – or perhaps a failure, since it was written for gentile audiences?

Diogenes the Cynic

Mark does not make a claim for a physical resurrection. Matthew was the first to do that.

What makes you think the expulsion from the synagogues had anything to do with the teaching of a physical resurrection?

Steven Avery

ynquirer, you werre quoting one of many modern version alexandrian corruptions
(although this one went put on a bit more legs than most).

The historic byzantine text, does not say Isaiah,
the pure Bible has "the prophets".

Mark 1:2 KJB
As it is written in the prophets,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee.

If you want an indepth analysis of the textual background, Professor Maurice Robinson did an absolutely incredible article (in response to a challenge from Gordon Fee since Fee thought this would be one of two0 "hard case" verses for Byzantine Priority) available on TREN. Tis well worth the read.

http://www.tren.com/e-docs/search.cf...title=Passages
Two Passages In Mark: A Critical Test For The Byzantine-Priority Hypothesis

Some of the info is here..
The Greek Text of New Testament (chapter 6) - Leland M. Haines
http://www.bibleviews.com/authority-6.pdf

As for the Greek OT, if you find some late manuscripts that mask the NT alexandrian error, it likely demonstrates alexandrian "smoothing" to have the Greek OT match the incorrect alexandrian NT. Evidence only of the corruptness of the Greek OT.
Hint: try to find the Greek OT reading in the DSS, Targum, Peshitta or Vulgate if you think it has any legs other than scribal tampering.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

ynquirer

praxeus

I must confess that my prior belief is that the case for the Alexandrian text in this particular verse is stronger that it seems at first glance. (In other verses the Byzantine texts are more reliable, though.)

In any event, thank you very much. I'll check your links.

ynquirer

It is interesting that you date the gospel of Matthew by 85 CE. I wouldn’t dare that much.

You’re wide of the mark. I don’t link the expulsion of the synagogues to the teaching of a physical resurrection. I do link the first gospel(s) to a success of the Christian preaching addressed to the Jews, which success I can’t but call extraordinary since the gospels weren’t written for Jews – according to you.

Diogenes the Cynic

That is pretty much the mainstream consensus. I do not claim that it had to be BY the mid 80's, only that it wasn't BEFORE then. I would never say that it couldn't have been later.
I can't understand what you're getting at here. The Gospels, with the possible exception of Mark, are POST expulsion books. Pauline Christians started out trolling for converts partly among Hellenistic Jews but after the destructuon of the temple and the diaspora, the Jewish leadership found it necessary to purge the synagogues of pagan influenced heresies which had taken root in Hellenistic communities. One of those heresies was Paul's "Christ" movement, which was pretty much a failure with Jews (there is no reason to believe that Paul had any success in synagogues) but which caught on with gentiles. After the expulsion, the Christian movement became essentially a gentile one and the gospels reflect that audience.