maryhelena

Great point! A point that surely needs to be repeated and repeated and repeated....A nobody itinerant preacher is a great way out of the HJ problems - a nobody that is impossible to question unless the very premise itself is questioned. A nobody itinerant preacher that was so charismatic that some people were moved to drop everything and follow him. And what would we call such a nobody itinerant preacher and such followers today? Seems to me that some double standards are in play here. Do we really want to think that people back there were so dumb? And they were just lucky to have hit the jackpot of 'truth'? And what would that actually mean - that now we must go and follow any nobody who sings a new tune - just in case we miss out when the roll call for heaven is read out.....

Methinks it's really about time that we gave those early Jewish Christians the benefit of the doubt - that they were not dumb and stupid but were intellectuals who knew very well what they were about - interpreting, evaluating, Jewish history as 'salvation' history - and then retelling the 'salvation' interpretation as pseudo-history.

The pseudo historical storyline re a supposedly itinerant preacher, former carpenter or stonemason - is a story attempting to draw comparisons between the artisans that were needed for building the literal temple and those needed for building the new spiritual temple. ( metaphorically speaking).


A nobody - no-way.......
Of course, the gospel Jesus figure is a nobody in the sense that this figure is not historical. However, there are elements in the storyline that do suggest that a historical figure has been used, seen as significant, seen as relevant - and that this historical figure was most certainty not a nobody...

aa5874

A nobody does not help HJ at all. You cannot have a WELL-KNOWN Jewish MESSIAH and also an OBSCURE nobody.

HJ needs historical evidence so if HJ was an obscure itinerant preacher then HJ cannot be Jesus in "Antiquities of the Jews" who did TEN thousand wonderful things and was called the Messiah.

Antquities of the Jews 18.3.3 An itinerant preacher is BIG problems for HJ.

spin

Actually, that's not what the text says. He goes to his πατρις, literally "fatherland". No location is given. It is just as anonymous as it has ever been. The Matthew writer saw no reason to elucidate, using the same word as Mark. The Lucan writer with the need to resolve the town issue identifies it as Nazara, while referring back to events in Capernaum, after which the whole passage is relocated to before the initial Capernaum incident, removing any claim that the town had.

In short, no Jesus doesn't return to Nazareth in Mk 6. That's just eisegesis, ancient eisegesis mind you, but still eisegesis.

Nazareth is not in the Q material, ie that shared between Matt & Luke but not found in Mark. And it is unlikely in Mark (1:9), for Matthew doesn't support the one instance of the name, so Nazareth isn't original to the story.

And he definitely smokes Chesterfields.


spin

maryhelena

"fatherland" - very interesting! Now that really casts the net far and wide.....

A "fatherland" outside of Galilee - now that could really set the cat among the pigeons......

spin - oh, what have you done..... :devil:

Doug Shaver

Yes, that is what the gospels say about him. But the gospels are not the only documents from that period that mention him.

That is one possibility. References to Jesus in documents other than the gospels raise other possibilities.

No, but my agenda tries to prevent me from assuming my conclusion when analyzing evidence.

2-J

Then, at the very least, we shouldn't shy away from saying that the conclusions of most if not all Ancient History are very tenuous compared to those of modern History. If the standard is that much lower. I think often, especially in the popular conception, that is not taken into account. We should be really open about it. I really do get the impression that the 'man on the street' thinks we know a lot more about the Ancient World than we actually do.

I think this remark is problematic though:-

Surely the very point at issue is whether the information is true in the first place. You cannot in one breath say the criteria would exclude true information and then say that that the information, that you're saying is true, is not definitely reliable. If it is not definitely reliable (or worse, if it is very possibly not reliable) then you cannot be that confident in saying that it is true... it may be, it may not. That is the whole point of having criteria in the first place.

spin

Hopefully, my comment is clear: Mark doesn't say in chapter six that the home town is Nazareth. The text just gives a generic term, "πατρις", literally "fatherland" and usually translated as "hometown", though that is more specific than the text.


spin

maryhelena

Sure, the translation you make is clear - it's the implications that are not so clear....

If the Greek word has more inherent meaning than simply being able to be translated as 'hometown' - then in the context of Mark ch.6 - what town is mentioned that is outside of Galilee, a town that could more meaningfully, in the context, reflect a "fatherland"? Bethsaida. A town, already at that time, renamed as Bethsaida Julius. A town/village from which some early disciples came.

(no sense in the storyline saying that Jesus is going to his 'fatherland' if he is already physically in that 'fatherland' - probably why translators would go for the 'hometown' translation. Thereby adding confusion re Nazareth - and minimizing any relevance to Bethsaida.)

spin

Gauging by this reaction I'm not assured.

Try something like "home soil", "zone of birth". The meaning of "πατρις" does allow you to go interstate.


spin

maryhelena

And out into the cross border areas - which by all accounts the gospel Jesus storyline has him going to and fro....Come on spin - you have just proposed a splendid way to get out of the Nazareth cul-de-sac - don't now short-change the implications of 'fatherland'. It's not 'motherland' or 'homeland' - it's 'fatherland' - with all the notions of national identity that word can carry. Galilee is for the gospel storyline - if it's history we are after we need to spread the net away from its borders...