Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 11-29-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I'm sure Ben Smith will lash me 40 times with a sodden manuscript of Mark 7 for using that phrase.

How about wet photographs of Secret Mark?

Stephen

No Robots · 11-29-2006, 08:31 AM

Just remember that Neusner wrote an extended apology to Gerhardsson for having peremptorily dismissed his work while under the influence of Morton Smith. You may some day find yourselves in a similar situation having at last freed yourselves from Earl Doherty.

Didymus · 11-29-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

The Pauline texts refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection over and over again. Those are rather central aspects to the gospel narrative as it comes down to us.

Rather central, indeed. They are just about the only incidents in Jesus' earthly sojourn that appear in both Paul and the gospels, and probably the only incidents in the entire Jesus legend that have a basis in historical fact. As the earliest writings about Jesus, Paul's epistles, IMHO, are the most reliable guide to what the first Christians actually knew about Jesus' life on earth, i.e., almost nothing.

Quote:

The Pauline texts refer to the author's knowledge of Christ (which he claims came through revelation),

Paul said that he received his gospel from no man. That's not the same as saying that he had learned nothing of Jesus from his contemporaries. (By "gospel," Paul meant Christian message.) In fact, he admitted to persecuting Christians prior to receiving any revelations (Gal1:13-15). If we can take that at face value, it's reasonable to assume that he had learned something about Christian beliefs about Jesus. But it's not reasonable to assume that those beliefs bore any resemblance to what appeared in Mark at least four decades later.

Quote:

Indeed, he claims that his gospel and theirs (i.e., the Jesus narrative) was the same.

Where does he do that???? What "Jesus narrative"? Chapter and verse, please!

Quote:

A reasonable conclusion from this is that there was an oral tradition and Paul's writings are more or less in accord with them as to the life and death of Jesus.

That must have been a mighty skimpy "oral tradition" as such things go!

Perhaps there was some sort of nascent "Jesus bio" in the air in 50 CE, but it couldn't have amounted to much, just as Paul's references to Jesus' life and death don't amount to much. (So you're right about the "accord" part!)

Of course, the story grew with the telling, and by the time of Mark, quite an elaborate tale had been kludged together from various sources.

Didymus

No Robots · 11-29-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Didymus

Rather central, indeed. They are just about the only incidents in Jesus' earthly sojourn that appear in both Paul and the gospels, and probably the only incidents in the entire Jesus legend that have a basis in historical fact. As the earliest writings about Jesus, Paul's epistles, IMHO, are the most reliable guide to what the first Christians actually knew about Jesus' life on earth, i.e., almost nothing.

As Gerhardsson points out (p.14), Paul quotes the Jesus tradition in only two places specifically to remind them of what he had previously taught them.

Vorkosigan · 11-30-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Just remember that Neusner wrote an extended apology to Gerhardsson for having peremptorily dismissed his work while under the influence of Morton Smith. You may some day find yourselves in a similar situation having at last freed yourselves from Earl Doherty.

SPOCK: Fight it, Jim! Fight it!
KIRK: I can't help it! Doherty's got my mind! Jesus.....never....existed!

Look, maybe the book is good. But the essay sucks.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 11-30-2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

How about wet photographs of Secret Mark?
Stephen

The photos with the naked boy? And me in my mid-life crisis? Bring'em on!

Vorkosigan

Jabu Khan · 11-30-2006, 02:06 AM

Am I mistaken or is this Gerhardson book actually saying that we can rely on the disciples to have memorized the teachings of Jesus until they later wrote them down because other rabinical students have been known to do this for their teachers?
I admit I have not read the book but what I see on the Amazon link says that he assumes that the disciples wrote the gospels and that they did a good job of memorizing Jesus's words. Which is absolutely no evidence or meaningful support of anything other than to say hey oral traditions happen. Therefore that is what happened here though I have no evidence of it.

No Robots · 11-30-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

SPOCK: Fight it, Jim! Fight it!
KIRK: I can't help it! Doherty's got my mind! Jesus.....never....existed!

No, wait, wait! Here's a gooder:

Earl, are you listening? This is the back end of your theory RIGHT HERE!

What is it with you Americans and back ends, anyway?

Quote:

Look, maybe the book is good. But the essay sucks.

Evidently, it was good enough to keep your pie hole shut about this.

No Robots · 11-30-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabu Khan

Am I mistaken or is this Gerhardson book actually saying that we can rely on the disciples to have memorized the teachings of Jesus until they later wrote them down because other rabinical students have been known to do this for their teachers?
I admit I have not read the book but what I see on the Amazon link says that he assumes that the disciples wrote the gospels and that they did a good job of memorizing Jesus's words. Which is absolutely no evidence or meaningful support of anything other than to say hey oral traditions happen. Therefore that is what happened here though I have no evidence of it.

I'm not really interested in engaging in a critique of Gerhardsson, especially with people who haven't bothered to read anything of him. I will be using his work to attack mythicist arguments, as I did above. Consider this fair warning. (It is generally a good practice to familarize oneself with the weapons of one's enemies.

)

No Robots · 11-30-2006, 09:12 AM

Oh, yeah, and the bit about "back ends" is a riff on Fawlty Towers ("Waldorf Salad"):

Mr H: And if you move off that spot, Fawlty, I'm going to bust your ass.
Basil: Everything's bottoms, isn't it?

Not quite Star Trek, but then what is?

11-30-2006, 09:12 AM	#140
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Oh, yeah, and the bit about "back ends" is a riff on Fawlty Towers ("Waldorf Salad"): Mr H: And if you move off that spot, Fawlty, I'm going to bust your ass. Basil: Everything's bottoms, isn't it? Not quite Star Trek, but then what is?

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

11-29-2006, 08:31 AM	#132
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Just remember that Neusner wrote an extended apology to Gerhardsson for having peremptorily dismissed his work while under the influence of Morton Smith. You may some day find yourselves in a similar situation having at last freed yourselves from Earl Doherty.

11-30-2006, 02:06 AM	#137
Jabu Khan Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: the impenetrable fortress of the bubbleheads Posts: 1,308	Am I mistaken or is this Gerhardson book actually saying that we can rely on the disciples to have memorized the teachings of Jesus until they later wrote them down because other rabinical students have been known to do this for their teachers? I admit I have not read the book but what I see on the Amazon link says that he assumes that the disciples wrote the gospels and that they did a good job of memorizing Jesus's words. Which is absolutely no evidence or meaningful support of anything other than to say hey oral traditions happen. Therefore that is what happened here though I have no evidence of it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.