spamandham

Ok, so do you believe the authors were truly quoting Jesus, and if so, why do you think that? What then is your explanation for the numerous impossible quotes of Jesus? For example, who was listening when Jesus was alone praying in the garden? Who was dutifully recording his words when he was having a conversation with the devil alone in the desert? Do you really believe he predicted the fall of the temple?

Were his last words really both to quote from Psalm 22 and to say "It is finished"?

You're projecting modern expectations onto ancient writers.

If you say so. This really is a pointless exchange, so I won't be responding to any more posts along this line of discussion.

Russellonius

How can a scheme for the remission of sins be anything but allegorical? Are sins literally remitted?

If, as I'm sure you believe, supernatural events cannot happen, then how can descriptions of them be intended as accurate historical accounts? Did supernatural events really happen or not? The authors would have been aware of constructing mythology as soon as they made a mythological claim. That includes the first 40 years.

Texts cannot indicate how the audience responded to those texts. We are stuck with trying to deduce authorial intent.

What we witness in nature is that religious people are not well informed about their sacred texts. As Augustine pointed out, the use of sacred texts by the layperson makes the religious professional's job more difficult. What we observe in nature is that religious people are rarely required to study the texts - and generally they don't. The Roman Catholic Church discouraged its members from reading the Bible until the 1950's! Religion is normally a face-to-face group social interaction. Texts are ancillary. In the ancient world texts were rare and few people could read.

It seems to me one intention of the authors was to effect change in the system for how sinners attain remission of sins. Actual transactions take place among humans in the 'remission of sin' industry. These transactions involve exchange of real capital between people. In a functioning economy, firms in the 'remission of sin' industry would attempt to increase market share. The purpose of marketing materials like the gospels, recited orally by memory to a mostly illiterate society, was to increase market share. A certain market competitor no longer had sufficient operating capital to remain in business as of 70AD. Thus the timing of the release of the marketing materials?

How did the audience respond? They bought in droves. We can tell by subsequent Christian demographic trajectory.

Christianity altered the channel through which sins were remitted. This is a real transaction, but lacking supernatural agency one side of the transaction does not actually transpire according to product specifications nor according to the terms of the contract. The actual transaction is between human providers and consumers of religious products. But if the providers told consumers that their goods and the terms of their contracts were inaccurately represented - meaning fictional, then they would be in the entertainment sector of the economy. Firms in the religious sector of the economy, by definition, must claim to sell supernatural goods and services. These products sell only because there is demand. Products for which there is no demand do not sell.

Should there be demand for supernatural products? Answering this question puts one on the level of consumer, not historian or market analyst. It's 'criticism', but not in the sense meant here.

Zed

Mark probably wrote his gospel in the first century, according to scholars.

Marcion came after Mark and Paul, etc. He was, well, a revisionist who stretched the words of the text well beyond their capacity, and his ideas died.

Zed

OK. Thanks for your input.

Zed

I don't subscribe to that concept, but many do. So?

Are you saying it's impossible that anyone ever falsely reported a supernatural event and intended it to be a historical account? I mean this has always happened and is still happening (literal reports of miracles).

I don't know what led them to do it. Maybe they were simply reporting exaggerated second-hand accounts. I don't know how anyone here could simply dismiss the very possibility that the gospel writers meant what they wrote literally, especially when they themselves say in the text they mean what they say literally!

Augustine believed the Jesus story to be literal history.

Back Again

Really? Are we talking about the same human beings here?

For one, yeah. For another, he didn't gather an army and drive the Romans out of Judea.

Jesus didn't match any meaningful messianic prophecies and most of his tricks were, frankly, of little use for Jews seeking political autonomy for their theocratic government.

Joan of Bark

Maybe Jesus related these stories to his disciples later? Not saying I believe that, but it is an explanation.

spamandham

Another explanation is that fairies were listening and imparted the conversation to the gospel authors telepathically after they hopped on one leg for an hour.

If we're going to engage in actual history rather than absurd speculation, then it's clear that these quotes are simply not historical, and necessarily then, the author made them up. Why would this even be surprising, considering that it was standard fare for period authors to engage in such a practice?

What does that tell us about the fidelity of the other quotes the same authors attribute to Jesus? Are they really the words of Jesus, or are they the words of the author put into the mouth of Jesus?

dog-on

Can I get an Amen!

show_no_mercy

Why would Jesus say "let the reader understand"?