aa5874

LegionOnomaMoi is just going in circles with his presumptive arguments. There is NO support whatsoever for any Jesus story in the 1st century yet he continues to SPOUT his absurd claims.

In the 2nd century both Justin and Trypho CONCEDED that the Jesus story was like Greek/Roman Myth.

[First Apology XXI[/U]
Dialogue with Trypho All the actual collected DATED evidence does NOT support any ACTIVITIES of Jesus in the 1st century.

LegionOnomaMoi

It's just as irrelevant.

Here's what I said:

A particular individual insists that because the gospels and other sources claim that Jesus was the son of the holy ghost or god or whatever, that in and of itself is enough to conclude that he was a myth, as well as similar conclusions lacking similar logical bases. I was merely demonstrating that even in the modern world, it is quite possible for a historical individual to be considered in ways commonly considered mythic and legendary rather than historical.

If I wanted to demonstrate the inadequacy of using mythic elements within the gospels as evidence that they are intended to be taken as myths or at least not intended to be considered as attempts to narrate the past, I would have pointed to just about every "biography" of the ancient world we have, along with most histories. Emperors said to be descended from gods (or be gods), mystics who could perform miracles, magicians who could do magic, and so forth.

This doesn't in and of itself demonstrate that the gospels should be taken as such, but if they aren't to be put in this category, then another explanation for their origin and how they were understood (and why) along with how followers of a mythic Christ for some reason did what no other followers of similar cultic deities did: somehow go from believers in a deity who may or may not have existed on earth at one time, to believing that he existed in a very specific time in a very specific place.

It does. But as with my modern example of a Christ-like figure who was historical, all you have demonstrated is that under particular circumstances (widespread literacy compared to the 1st century, a number of genres including those particular to class struggle, a long history of works written under the name of another, the need for anonymity and the advantage of pseudonymity in a period where the capacity to track down authors was far greater, and so forth) people can attribute works, including letters and proclamations, which claim to be written by one individual to that individual (also, by the way, there was an Edward Ludd from Gloucestershire whom we know from archival records married a woman in 1769, but there is no evidence that he was the nexus for the literature claiming to be written by one sharing his name). Decades before the first letter we have from "Ned Lud[d]" in 1811, pamphlets other material quite similar to that which bore Ludd's name existed. So did attacks on factories and machines by the labor class. However, while hardly the first law against such actions or the first time those who promoted or committed such violence were arrested, in Feb. 1812 a law was passed which explicitly stated that destructions of machines were to be met with execution. This appears to have been the last straw as well as a reminder of the importance of anonymity, and thus without (it appears) either an actual Edward Ludd or deliberately coordinated efforts the protestors rallied around a fictitious (and therefore unpunishable) leader General Ludd who capably continued to write inspiring and/or threatening literature.

In this particular instance, not only did people believe that the almost certainly fictitious Ludd was a real person because (in addition to his "followers") there were plenty of texts purporting to be written by him (rather than about him, as with the gospels), his followers were committing acts punishable by death, and therefore were quite secret and conspiratorial anyway. And it wasn't long before people figured out that there didn't seem to be anyone behind this literature. For example, a book on the Luddite movement published in 1862 is available for free from google books here.

From the book: "The insurgents, who assumed the name of "Luddites," probably with a view of inspiring their adherents with confidence, the malcontents gave out that they were under the command of one leader, whom they designated by the fictitious name of Ned Ludd, or General Ludd, calling themselves Ludds, Ludders, or Luddites. There is no reason however to believe that there was in truth any one leader." p.1

So your example consists of a group of people rebelling and claiming that they are doing so in the name of one leader, and who were breaking the law and committing acts punishable by death. Additionally, some also produced various works purporting to be written by this leader, "General" Ned Ludd. As the whole thing was done outside of the law while the law-breakers were being hunted down, there was no reason for people to believe that such an individual didn't exist. But it didn't take long after the trials for people to wonder if this person ever actually existed at all. Nor was this the first time revolutionaries had realized that a leader provides a mechanism for cohesion, and that a fictitious one is rather convenient when there is a good possibility a real leader will be executed. There were multiple fictitious leaders before Ludd, in the 18th century. But they did not enjoy his popularity. And Ludd never gained the following of the equally fictitious "Captain Swing" of the 1830s.

In your example, then, we not only have people creating a legend in ways which had already been done, and which was believed only so long as the movement lasted and the legal system could not fully investigate the followers' claims concerning their "leader" (after which time, it wasn't long before people recognized that Ludd probably no more real than his 18th century less popular equivalents, and not long after that until historians began documenting how this fiction came about), we also have a situation in which
1) The need for a fictitious leader was called for both as a rallying point and to avoid actual punishment/execution
2) Numerous works existed claiming to be written by this individual.


Rewind about 2000 years. We have no works claiming to be written by Jesus. We have no precedent for fictitious-religious-biographical narratives. We have no highly literate community capable of even reading such works. Even the individual who wrote Mark (apparently the start of this whole affair) was fairly inept. And if Paul and those like him believed in a purely spiritual Christ, we have a group of people who mysteriously vanish without a trace, only to later re-appear in a lesser and unconnected form of "gnostics" who believed that Jesus did actually walk on earth, but only appeared human. So instead of a fairly quick realization that nothing is behind the legend (as happened with the Ned Ludd), we have a group of people believing that the Jesus myth was only myth, followed by 180 degree turn thanks largely to a badly written work authored by an anonymous person whose poor literary skill somehow didn't prevent him from literary brilliance (after all, he invented an entire genre akin to historical fiction).




Have you spent a lot of time reading works from antiquity? Because you may be biased by the nature, breadth, scope, etc., of modern literature.

Standard? Most of it came out of works written in German in the 19th and early 20th century (in fact, it began with Holtzmann's Die synoptischen Evangelien which became the argument for Markan priority in the 19th century). It became an easier task to establish dates once most agreed on the relationship between the gospels (i.e., the two-source hypothesis), but the debate continues and still includes much earlier dates. Later dates have become significantly harder to defend after the scrap of John (p52) was dated to the middle of the 2nd century or so. Given that it is not an autograph and seems to have at least travelled far, far, from where John was likely composed, this means that a date much later than the first century for John is hard to believe, let alone a date close to the end of the first century for Mark.

I've read Detering, unfortunately. Or at least I read Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus. It's as believable as J. A. T. Robinson's argument that the entirety of the NT was composed before the standard date for Mark (c. 70 CE). Actually, Eisler's position that Eusebius' reference to a forged document claiming to be written by Pilate was actually written by Pilate provides a better analogy, given Detering's similar treatment of far later sources.


Not really. If you read a book for children, there may be no grammatical errors, but the simplistic grammar (this is less apparent in English, where inflection is virtually nil) and lexical usage make it apparent that the work is simplistic. Mark wasn't writing a book for children, but his work shows similar traits. However, it is the transitions (a purely stylistic issue) between components of his narrative (less so with sentence/clause level transitions, but his limited skill shows here as well) which make his lack of skill so apparent.

I'm disagreeing with Burridge (and the majority opinion here). I agree more with parts of the position of Wills, Alexander, and others who acknowledge that the gospels are similar to biographies in many ways, or at least that these are as dissimilar from each other as they are from the gospels. However, the nebulous nature of "genre" in that period make such distinct classifications not just difficult, but impossible. A "fuzzier" approach is called for, which recognizes both the similarities between the gospels and Lives and the similarities between narrative-historical accounts in general (including the "technical" narratives Alexander discusses). But to compare Mark or the gospels to the Epics is rather ridiculous. As the structure and flow of these are obviously different from the gospels, MacDonald relies on "motifs" (as do so many others who wish to use literary theory and the Freudian/Jungian bullshit which accompanies it), only as even the Odyssey is thousands of lines long one can do this with just about any work. And they have: there's an entire discipline devoted to uncovering classical motifs within literature from especially the early modern period until today, and often enough articles are published which find the Odyssey and nostos within just about anything.

Thank you. I'll check these out.

Solo

It is as implausible as that the expressionistic lanscape below was painted in the 16th century, right ?




Maybe he was just faking simplicity to mislead people who think because they are smart everyone else has got to be stupid. :huh: Besides, there may have been a theological rationale to dissimulate simplicity and lack of learning (1 Cr 1:20-21).

Mark has Jesus quote a non-existent commandment (10:19). It must have been a mistake, right ?

You have just happily contradicted yourself. If Aeschylus (I believe) created dialog between characters in a genre of drama that before knew only individual declamation against a chorus then he created it ex nihilo. If what you say is true there would never have been any innovation in literature or arts generally.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Your posts are getting extremely disturbing. You are just making stuff up without any remorse.

Please are you NOT even AWARE of Greek/Roman Mythology with Fictitious-Religous-Biographical narratives??

Please, take a time out. You are tying yourself up in knots.

You don't make any sense at all with respect to ancient history.

Please, please, please, your posts are extremely painful to read. You appear to be grasping at Non-existing straws to save Jesus.

The Jesus story was ACCCEPTED because it was like Ancient Greek/Roman Mythology.

The Fictitious--Religous--Biographical narratives of the Greeks and Romans were documented by Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources of antiquity.

The Fictitious-Religous-Biographical narratives of Apollo, Jupiter, Zeus, Dionysius,..... PREDATE Jesus, the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Toto

Do you realize that many posters here have spent some time trying to straighten out that particular individual (whose name starts with aa) and have ended up putting that particular individual on ignore?

Unfortunately, this particular individual persists in using that argument, rather than a more sophisticated or nuanced version that might need to a more productive discussion.



Yes, you can pick out some details that are different. Christian apologists like to argue that Christianity is unique, and can therefore only be explained by divine favor, or a uniquely inspired human who might have been god. Are you trying to make this sort of argument? Do you see enough similarity between Christianity and other religions so that you can apply normal social science methods?


...

This is a rather naive acceptance of Christian arguments for an early dating for P52.


You have tried to argue that genre itself has some implications for the content of the gospels, but now it is "fuzzy." I'm getting whiplash trying to follow your point.

LegionOnomaMoi

"some details"? Really!?? You can readily pick up on the inadequacy of using a modern day messiah to suppor an ancient one, but the fact that you example fails as a comparison in more ways than mine escapes your notice? You simply cut out what I said about the specifics of your example compared to what matters, and then refer to "different" details? The core of your examples, from the fictitious individual to the creation of such individuals to the media, legal system, and literacy which enabled the legendary person are not details. The creation of similar figures existed before and continued after.But as long as you would rather cut out the details and arguments I made rather than deal with them, comparisons of the type you make are much easier.


I've explicitly compared the sources for Jesus with sources for other historial individual about whom myths and legends arose. The individual isn't unique, simply our sources.


Depends on the religion. The origins of christianity resemble sects/cults in which legends and myths are attributed to a historical individual lost under such accounts. This is true of individuals of the ancient world and modern.


You referred to Detering. He's not naive, he's just about as believable as Robinson and his dates. I've read quite a bit of literature on dating papyri and similar sources. But if you want to rely on wikipedia, by all means do so.


Mea culpa. By way of analogy, take modern poetry. We have free verse, traditional forms, haiku, etc. But they are all related and all differ. In the ancient world, "historical" accounts differed in sytle and approach, but united in the attempt to tell the actual story of the past

Toto

Don't lose the point. If there were a historical Jesus of the sort that some moderns believe existed, Haile Selasse would be a good model. My objection was to the implication that all legendary figures have a historical core of some sort.

OK - you listed

widespread literacy compared to the 1st century

,

Why is this significant? Early Christians were literate enough. Most of them couldn't read, but they could listen to someone read in their gatherings.

a number of genres including those particular to class struggle,

Why is this significant? Early Christians had access to epistles, novels, theological writings, etc. They used them all.

a long history of works written under the name of another,

Why is this significant, and is it really different? Early Christianity has lots of works written under the name of another, as does Judaism.

the need for anonymity

No difference there, since Christianity was not a legal religion.

and the advantage of pseudonymity in a period where the capacity to track down authors was far greater,

Not clear why this is significant, or why you think the Roman system of spies was less efficient in a smaller society than the British police in a more complex society.



Which sects/cults are those?


The wikipedia article appears to have been updated with a complete summary of the dispute and is just a handy reference. This particular fragment has been the subject of a lot of discussion.

I would dispute the idea that there was a clear attempt to tell the story of the past - either that anything is clear, or that there was even an attempt to tell the story of the past. That is a modern notion of the purpose of history. I'll let you try to support this assertion.

LegionOnomaMoi

I fail to see how this means that your example of a legendary figure without a historical core has any relevancy or significance whatsoever. I cite a modern example who is similar to Jesus, and you (in that case rightly) object that it is irrelevant. Not all legendary figures have some historical core. But somehow citing a 19th century case of a legendary figure without a historical core is relavent? How?



"Literate enough" for what? People believed there was a real Ned Ludd only because he appeared to have authored enough works and because he supposedly led a group of underground individuals.

The situation is radically different in the ancient world. First because we don't have a single example of narrative like the gospels which we know was intended to be viewed as ahistorical, and second because people across the roman empire heard stories and narratives and were capable of distinguishing those intended to be legends and myths and those intended to recount the past.


What novels?

Because the only reason anybody thought Ned Ludd was a real person was that he appeared to be actually writing documents. What do we have akin to the gospels about people who are nailed down to a specific region and period not long before the narrative describing them which concern fictitious people?

Yet not only does Paul make clear who he was, but others write in his name.

1) You'd have to look at the labor movement and similar movements as well as the literature accompanying them which arose in the 18th century and continued into the 19th
2) It's one thing for people to believe someone existed because a whole lot of documents pop up which appear to be written by that individual. That didn't happen with Jesus.
3) The Roman empire was spread thin, and the dissemination of materials was quite different. During the age of the printing press, a much smaller region, a much better legal system and enforcement system, things were different.
4) We don't have pseudonymous gospels. We have anonymous gospels.


The worship of the Emperor, the Pythagoreans, Haile Selasse, the neoplatonists, and others.


Even if true, that's like saying a wikipedia article contains a "complete summary" of textual criticism. There isn't any way that most isn't lost.

I know. I've read a lot of it. It wasn't until coming across the blogosphere and similar mediea that I realized the nature of the debate outside of scholarship used to date such texts/fragments.

It isn't a modern notion. Aristotle, in his Poetics, echoed Ranke's description of the object of historical inquiry (that historians seek to know “wie es eigentlich gewesen"). According to Aristotle, history tells (λέγειν) the things which actually happened (τά γενόμενα). Cicero, in his De Legibus, also connects history with fact: “in illa [historia] omnia veritatem…quaeque referantur”. Lucian echoes Aristotle in his manual How to Write History, stating “Τοῦ δὴ συγγραφέως ἔργον ἕν—ὡς ἐπράχθη εἰπεῖν.” Historians and biographers were quite frequently explicit not just about their aims to document the past through their narratives, but what historiography itself was.

LegionOnomaMoi

What is the point you are making?


Most of those who knew of his work couldn't read at all. They had it read to them.


The fact that Paul says "not many of you are wise" doesn't mean that he does so for theological and/or apologetic reasons.


No. Lohmeyer in Das Evangelium des Markus (among others) suggests it is a conflation of the 9th and 10th commandements in a form convenient for Mark's author and in line with Halakic treatment of scripture. In fact, Lohmeyer goes so far as to suggest that Mark preserves a Galilean treatment of these, but here at least few are convinced. Gundry argued that this in place of the "covet" commandment. However, the more frequent argument is that Mark was relying on an interpretation or component of the Jesus tradition, rather than written scripture (Hebrew or Greek).


Only Aeschylus didn't. Drama was around before him. Additionally, the origins of his type of play come from a dialogue between the choras and a sort of "lead singer" before the actual genre of "plays" existed.


nihil sub sole novum. Innovation is one thing. It involves the extension of older things or reinterpretations of older things. Seldom is it quite novel. In this particular instance, we are dealing with literature in a highly illiterate culture, as well as a culture which didn't particularly look upon new traditions with fondness (to put it mildly). Herodotus didn't seek to be the "father of history" but rather to document what he had "investigated" during his travels and interactions. Athenian comedy didn't magically appear after only tragedy, but after the dramatic cycles had already called for "tragedies" which didn't end tragically. They weren't comedies either, but they managed to end without everybody dying or some similar conclusion.

Solo

The style which El Greco developped in Toledo was unprecedented. No-one taught him to paint like that. Nor was there a guarantee his artistic expression would be understood. (And largely it wasn't in his own time).


And how is this established, may I ask ? You (or John Meagher) asserting it does not make it so.

The text that I believe Mark's style adresses is απολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν καὶ τὴν σύνεσιν τῶν συνετῶν ἀθετήσω ("I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the learning of the learned.") It is a slightly modified Isa 29:14 that Paul invoked.


The "covet" displacement is quite commonly argued but it seems a poor solution to me. There is a big gap between 'mē aposterēsēs' and 'me epithymēseis' and to argue that some Jewish faction could not tell them apart does not hold water. Neither Matthew nor Luke preserve 'mē aposterēsēs', and it was dropped even from some later Mark manuscripts. So if V. Taylor and Metzger are to be believed, the expression was apparently not recognized as a paraphrase of the 10th commandment.

So, my take on it is that Mark creatively plugged in Paul's maxim (from 1 Cr 7:5) to make a comment about the 'honouring one's father and mother' around which the Markan community had some axe to grind with some Jewish (and Jewish Christian) mores of the time (cf 7:9-12).


You are missing my point. Whoever it was who introduced the innovations in Greek drama did not do it in response to the demands of the audience. Someone invented new forms of stage interaction.


Again, this strikes me as much talking past the point. At issue here is whether the gospel narrative as conceived by Mark could have been in fact a novel literary genre deploying what appears a run-of-the-mill style of bioi for some other purpose. For example, could Mark use the narrative as allegorical props for a theological interpretation of an earlier Christology to describe the beliefs and values of his community. Could he have created the gospel to test whether newcomers to the group had a mature, spiritual understanding of their ecstatic experiences ? Clearly, such possibilities exist, or at least I am not aware of any objectively valid reasons why he could not do just that.

Best,
Jiri