Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 01-17-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Makes one wonder what it takes to be a scholar, though. The ability to read and write?

No tongue visible when using crayons. (It takes a lot of training.)

inps

Vivisector · 01-17-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

It does create an fascinating conflict of accuracy between Matthew and Mark. I'm of the impression that Matthew came first but understand completely that there are many arguments against that view as well.

My take on the status of authorship order is that scholars are nearly unanimous (exceptions including some very conservative Christians and some who argue for priority of Luke) in concluding that Mark was written first.

Quote:

If I was right then could the anonymity be something that was added to explain the lack of evidence or knowledge of Jesus outside the 90 mile geographical radius of Matthews account of Jesus and his ministry?

I suppose it could be - if I understand you correctly, whichever direction authorship goes, it seems you have "Mark" trying to explain Jesus's very limited fame. If this is an accurate characterization of what Mark had in mind, then it stands to reason (to me, at least) that Mark thought there was a reason to do so. One possible reason is that there were people, contemporaneous with gospel authorship, who could have denied that Jesus enjoyed widespread celebrity.

Personally, I think the treatments of Jesus's fame are more consistent with Markan priority in the sense that they seem to follow usual legendary development.

Cheers,

V.

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

My take on the status of authorship order is that scholars are nearly unanimous (exceptions including some very conservative Christians and some who argue for priority of Luke) in concluding that Mark was written first.

V.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, my mistake. I SHOULD have said Mark.

aa5874 · 01-17-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

The implied characterization of the Gospels' accuracy might be a bit too charitable. We know "Matthew" embellished greatly (e.g., statements like the ones you quoted, accounts of earthquakes). On the other hand, Mark seems to go out of his way to explain why, in spite of his great deeds, Jesus *wasn't* famous (he worked the small-town circuit, he told the beneficiaries to keep it secret, etc.). I think Mark's account of how Jesus could do no great deed in his home town is extraordinarily telling; it could explain, for example, why the people in Jesus's hometown had no memory of Jesus as a miracle worker.

Mark's explanations and Matthew's embellishments suggest, to me anyway, a Jesus who was perhaps embarrassingly obscure.

Cheers,

V.

You probably haven't read all of gMark. The author of gMark did portray Jesus of Nazareth as embarrassingly popular.

Mark 2.13, "....and all the multitude resorted unto him and he taught them."

Mark 3.7-8, "...and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judea. And from Jerusalem and from Idumea, and from beyond Jordan, and they about Tyre and Sidon .......when they heard what things he did......."

Mark 4.1, ".....and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered a ship..."

Mark 5.31, " And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee..."

Mark 7.33, "And he took him aside from the multitude....

Mark 8.1, "In those days the multitude being very great...."

Mark 9.14, "And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them

Your assesment of gMark's Jesus appears to be in error. According to the author, Jesus rocked Judea and beyond, strange however, all non-apologetic extant writings cannot account for this superstar of the 1st century, Jesus of Nazareth.

Ben C Smith · 01-17-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Makes one wonder what it takes to be a scholar, though. The ability to read and write?

No tongue visible when using crayons. (It takes a lot of training.)

Ben.

Vivisector · 01-17-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You probably haven't read all of gMark.

Actually I have, a few times, but - like many recovering Christians - not until I had lapsed.

And you're absolutely right - Mk portrays him, in one breath, as being as popular as a rock star (you could even have included the feeding of the five thousand as another example). On the other hand, look at the places Mk omits as concert venues (e.g., Tiberias and Sepphoris), and the fact that even Mark must admit that in his very own hometown, "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." The question I'd ask you is, if you wanted to portray Jesus as a miracle worker - widely acclaimed in his own time - but (a) he wasn't, in fact, very well-known at all, and (b) specific claims of fame could be falsified (by, for example, people from Jesus's hometown), how would you do it? If this were my objective and realities, I'd probably approach it very much as Mark did - use large numbers, frequent references to crowds and multitudes, deal with the realities as best I could, and - above all - be no more specific than I absolutely had to.

Cheers,

V.

Solitary Man · 01-17-2008, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

Yes, that was the point of my thread: if most evidence is against a historical Jesus through lack of objective documentation

Why are we continuing with the junk term "objective documentation"?? It doesn't exist! There is no objective documentation for any ancient figure. Period.

Quote:

(And I respect 'Solitary Man's' position that if you believe the gospels are accurate then, for him, they are as reliable as any evidence)

This is not my position at all.

Quote:

then it seems reasonable to hold the position that he never existed.

So no ancient figures exist?

Flaming Moe · 01-17-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaming Moe

Yes, that was the point of my thread: if most evidence is against a historical Jesus through lack of objective documentation

Why are we continuing with the junk term "objective documentation"?? It doesn't exist! There is no objective documentation for any ancient figure. Period.

This is not my position at all.

Quote:

then it seems reasonable to hold the position that he never existed.

So no ancient figures exist?

I disagree that 'objective documentation' is a junk term; if I haven't corrected it previously it's because other posters have followed up on rebuttals accurately. We can use 'non apologist sources' if that helps. I know about the gospels and acts but I simply don't believe accounts of raising the dead, withering fig trees and water walking to be worth mentioning in this day and age

I apologise if I misrepresented your position, I'll be glad to read it if you have the time to write it.

aa5874 · 01-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I believe it is clear that Solitary Man was referring to the James reference when he called the passage mostly undisputed. Not the TF, which he called disputed.

Ben.

The reference to "James" in AJ 20.9.1 is not disputed, it is the reference to "Christ" that is disputed.

Suetonius, in The life of Vespasian, Tacitus in Histories 5.13 and Josephus in Wars 6.5.4 all agreed in their writings that the Jews expected the Christ at around 70CE, yet a passage appeared in Antiquites that the Christ died about 35 years earlier and was resurrected.

It should be obvious that any reference to this resurrected Christ must be disputed.

Quote:

AJ 20.9.1, "....so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...."

AJ 18.3.3, "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;........He was (the) Christ.......for he appeared to them alive again the third day...."

Quote:

WJ 6.5.4, "But now what did elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

Quote:

Histories 5.13, ".....but in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire. These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, [b]but the common people, with usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves....."

Quote:

Life of Vespasian 4.5, "There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at the time for men coming fom Judaea to rule the world. This prediction, referring to the emperor of Rome, as afterwards appeared from the event, the people of Judaea took to themselves;....."

Where did this "Christ" in AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 come from? What is his history? I cannot find any history for this Christ, he appears to be fiction.

WVIncagold · 01-17-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul never met Jesus and one has difficulty finding anything in his writings that suggests that he got any first hand witness of Jesus from others.

This is two different statements being juxtaposed creating the illusion that the second establishes the first. Paul never met Jesus, true enough. He is contemporary. One might be able to read Paul as having no first hand information from others (I'm not arguing that point one way or the other here), but the facts remain that 1) He is contemporary, and 2) He is evidence.

How good that evidence is is another question, but to suggest that contemporary evidence doesn't exist is false.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

in a court of law its heresay

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.