Freethought & Rationalism Archive

robto · 12-21-2005, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Q does not contain any information about Jesus' life, RUmike, as the narrative of Jesus' life is a fiction invented by the writer of Mark. In any case Q does not exist. Hehehehehehe.

Q has stories about Jesus's life and quotes his sayings/teachings.

Quote:

We actually discuss these questions a lot, and each one has been answered. One problem is not that there is no explanation, but rather, too many, and some not compatible. With the exception of Atwill (Jesus as fraud by ranking Flavians) and Carotta (Jesus is big Oops! On Caesar story), broadly speaking, mythicists see a long evolution from a Mythical Savior figure to a historicized savior.

Well, I've read Allegard, Wills, and Price, and have yet to see anything resembling the kind of reconstruction of the pathway of development that I'm looking for. If you have references, let's have 'em.

Quote:

The synoptics themselves preserve a summary of the path from unearthly to earthly savior. The earliest one, Mark, shows Jesus as an idealized believer who is an adopted Son of God. There is no history or biographical data, no explanation of how Jesus' character came to be, no presentation of his life as a genuine life. By the time we get to Luke we have a faux biography that ensonces Jesus in the reign of Tiberius, offers a glimpse of his youth, provides the circumstances of his birth, and so on. Luke developed the fictional narrative of Mark into the historicized savior.

Hardly. Mk shows Jesus as someone overwhelmed by the Spirit of God, Matt has him as a Moses-like prophet who was born magically of a virgin, Luke has him as a god-like rival to the Roman Emperor, and John has a pre-existent being who descends from heaven to become human. Looks to me like the development is in the direction of increasing myth, not decreasing.

RUmike · 12-21-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charioteer

If this were all you were trying to say then I'd be compelled to not even argue, but this isn't how I read your last post. You made the claim that if Q was written between 50 - 70 AD then that would destroy the mythicist view. Not only would this not "destroy" the mythicist view; it wouldn't even damage said view. It also appears that there are some misconceptions about the Q document that could be taken from your post. For example, by reading your post I could deduce that: (1) Scholars have physical access to Q. (2) Q is a narrative of the life of a physical Jesus. (3) The mythicist view is dependent on the dating of the Q document.

None of those are true. Ofcourse you did not possitively assert any of them, but if I were not at all educated on the matter they would be easy assumptions to make from your post.

Thanks for your reply. My actual claim in the OP was:

Quote:

Not only that, but most scholars contend that Q was written sometime around 50-70. This means that Q might be just as early as the earliest letter of Paul (1 Thess). If true, this pretty much destroys the idea that the earliest writings about Jesus had no information about his earthly life.

I didn't say it would destroy the the mythicist view, but that it would destroy the idea that the earliest writings about Jesus had no information about his earthly life. Reflecting on this, destroy was a poor word to choose, but I still stand by the gist of the argument.

About the 3 deduced assertions, sorry, I did not mean to imply any of those such things. I assumed most around here have a working knowledge of Q and would know such things about it. I also didn't mean to imply that Q has a narrative or any narrative facts about Jesus' life (as in birth, baptism, any actions of Jesus, etc.), but merely has teachings, which can be evidence for an earthly life.

My point is simply: Paul knows nothing about Jesus' teachings, but Q does. Both may date to the same time period, and if so, the statement: "the earliest Christian writings include no information about Jesus' life or teachings" would be false. That's all.

Clivedurdle · 12-21-2005, 02:27 PM

Isn't Didache very early?

http://www.didache-garrow.info/dated...atedidcube.htm

Quote:

Earlier than Mark's Gospel

Compared with Matthew's and Luke's Gospels, Mark has very few points of contact with the Didache. However, there is one parallel of crucial importance for the date of Didache 16 - part of the Didache's earliest layer.

Didache16.8 contains a version of Daniel 7.13 which has been altered to fit the regular structure of the Didache's closing warning about the last days. The alterations in question are highly characteristic of the rest of the warning, so there is good reason to suppose that they are original to this setting. Four of the same changes also appear in the version of Daniel 7.13 used in Mark 13.26. In this case, however, the changes are uncharacteristic of Mark's style and introduce confusion in their new context. This strongly suggests that Mark's text has been influenced by the Didache's reworking of Daniel's prophecy. If this is the case, then Didache 16 predates Mark 13.

Given that there is good reason to suppose that Mark 13 was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it follows that Didache 16 comes from a period that is earlier still. For more details see The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache pp.191-196.

Vorkosigan · 12-21-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

You can't say that we have NO biographical data. We learn at least that he was from Nazareth, had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters, and was baptized by John. Other things, such as his reputation as a drunkard, the accusation of casting demons out in the name of Beelzebub, and his parents thinking him crazy are not very flattering things to make up about an idealized believer.

RUmike, what if the writer of Mark was not an "idealized" believer but a sophisticated and witty one? What if he did not understand Jesus as 'the Son of God' but as an idealized representation of the believer himself? What if the Gospel of Mark is not a biography? Also, Mark says Jesus is from Capernaum, not Nazareth (the one mention of which appears to be interpolated, I would argue).

As for evidence that the "biographical" details in Mark are fictions off the OT, see my Commentary.

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_index.html

My discussion of Nazareth is in Chapter 1.

Michael

Vorkosigan · 12-21-2005, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Given that there is good reason to suppose that Mark 13 was written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, it follows that Didache 16 comes from a period that is earlier still. For more details see The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache pp.191-196.

This dude's on crack. There is no reason whatsoever to date that speech before 70, and only conservatives do. There is nothing abnormal about the writer's use of Daniel in Mark 13:26, as that exact same phrase also occurs in the next chapter.

Michael

Kosh · 12-21-2005, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

Not only that, but most scholars contend that Q was written sometime around 50-70. This means that Q might be just as early as the earliest letter of Paul (1 Thess). If true, this pretty much destroys the idea that the earliest writings about Jesus had no information about his earthly life.

:rolling:

What methodology (other than orthodoxy) was used to date a hypothetical document of nothing other than sayings?

:rolling:

RUmike · 12-21-2005, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

:rolling:

What methodology (other than orthodoxy) was used to date a hypothetical document of nothing other than sayings?

:rolling:

It's not my dating, it's what I understand to be the scholary concensus. What's so hilarious about it? Yes I know the document is hypothetical. But so does every scholar who believes it was indeed a written document that once existed.

Steven Avery · 12-22-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Also, Mark says Jesus is from Capernaum, not Nazareth (the one mention of which appears to be interpolated, I would argue).l

Lest anyone reading this think that Mark only mentions Nazareth once,
or that you would only have to argue for one interpolation.

Mark 1:9
And it came to pass in those days,
that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee,
and was baptized of John in Jordan.

Mark 1:24
Let us alone; what have we to do with thee,
thou Jesus of Nazareth?
art thou come to destroy us?
I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Mark 10:47
And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth,
he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David,
have mercy on me.

Mark 14:67
And when she saw Peter warming himself,
she looked upon him, and said,
And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.

Oh, and for contrast, he was never Jesus of Capernaum.

Mark 1:21 - And they went into Capernaum;
Mark 2:1 - And again he entered into Capernaum
Mark 9:33 - And he came to Capernaum

"Doveryay, no proveryay"
-- or perhaps here -- just verify.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan · 12-22-2005, 12:54 AM

Prax, all the mentions of "Nazareth" in Mark are nazara except for the one in Mark 1.

Vorkosigan

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

12-22-2005, 12:54 AM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Prax, all the mentions of "Nazareth" in Mark are nazara except for the one in Mark 1. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.