Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 02-20-2010, 07:12 PM

Hi ApostateAbe,

You say "the gospel of Mark is not ashamed to quote Jesus as saying, "...this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened, unlike the gospel of John, dated to 90 CE, which merely makes an excuse for that rumor of such a prophecy."

First, I would like to know where in the Gospel of John there is "an excuse for that rumor of such a prophecy." I am unable to locate it.

More importantly, after making this prediction, the writer immediately make an excuse. He has Jesus admit that he doesn't really know the date when something will happen. He says "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. "

Here is the entire passage:

Quote:

13.30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The first question that we have to ask is was the writer giving predictions for the future or talking about things that had already happened? From the sentence "And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days."

So, in the writer's mind the events have come about that will be a prelude and sign to the Apocalypse and they happened to the generation that Jesus addressed before they died out. Jesus is not predicting the actual apocalypse because "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son..." It appears he knows the signs of the approaching apocalyse, but not the exact time.

The only thing that this does is date the text to beyond 70 C.E.. It does not set the date at 70, 80, 90, 100 or 150.

Let us say I am a Mormon writing a story about Joseph Smith who died in 1844. I want to say that he predicted the future accurately and I want to scare my audience into believing that Smith predicted the Apocalypse happening shortly around our time 2010. I might write something like this:

Quote:

And Smith said, Here is the signs of the apocalypse, and you of this generation shall not pass away until they all come to pass -- the South shall rise against the North. Brother shall war against Brother and then an assassination in a theater. Across the sea, the anti-Christ will be putting pen to paper and creating his manifesto. This shall not be the end, but only a sign that the end is coming near, because no man or prophet knows the exact hour or day of the end.

The reader might very well think, "Wow, Smith predicted the Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln and the writing of the Communist Manifesto, this proves he knew the future. If he thought that the end would come shortly after 1850, this being 2010, the end really has to be coming soon, any minute. Oh my God, I'm living on borrowed time. I better save my soul as soon as possible."

This is the effect that the gospel writer appears to me to be going for in his discourse. The only thing we get from this is that the writer is trying to scare his audience that the apocalypse is coming soon and he is writing after the generation that has seen the first signs has passed away -- post 70.

Since we cannot date this writing from this discourse, we are left to find other means to date this discourse. At least 20 Second Century Christian writers do not know of it. Since Justin Martyr and Celsus seem not to know about the Gospel of Mark in 180, we may suggest that close to 180 is a reasonable date. Irenaeus is the first writer we encounter who does know it, but it is only Eusebius who dates him to the 180's, as he may have been later, if he existed at all, Irenaeus is not a good witness to declaring that the gospel of Mark existed positively by 180.

Please be kind enough to point out the fallacies in these deductions, so I may see my errors.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do you realize how bad your logic is?

Except that you don't know when the gospel of Mark was written. There is no record of it before the second century.

And even if it were written a generation after Jesus' alleged death, there is no indication that it was written as a factual biolgraphy.

This issue has been done to death here.

:banghead:

Have you even read a historical novel? They generally get lots of background data correct.

No, it is not most reasonable. It is grasping at straws. Those "certain methods" are not used in any other branch of study, and have not been shown to work.

Toto, I know that just about all of the issues have been done to death here, but it doesn't change the facts nor the probabilities. The dating of the gospel of Mark accepted by the scholarly establishment seems to be a good one, because the gospel of Mark is not ashamed to quote Jesus as saying, "...this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," unlike the gospel of John, dated to 90 CE, which merely makes an excuse for that rumor of such a prophecy. The moving of the dates of the gospels is a special position of MJ advocates, and they either need evidence or they should not treat the claim like it deserves serious attention. It is an ad hoc claim, accepted by hardly anyone except by those who need to believe it to support their own theories.

"No, it is not most reasonable. It is grasping at straws. Those 'certain methods' are not used in any other branch of study, and have not been shown to work."

We don't have to debate those "certain methods," because the point I was making is not relevant to whatever methods you use. The fact is that the gospel stories are a mix of truth and falsehood. That means it is certainly not reasonable to grant the gospels only the barest historical legitimacy. So, how are you going to deal with that? If you have a theory that explains with greater probability the contents of the Christian gospels, containing truth and falsehood both, then that is what is needed for the MJ position to gain acceptance. The idea that the gospels were historical novels is one way to go about it, though it is probably not going to work, because it seems to be a preposterous theory in light of all the contents of the gospels (such as the genealogies, long moral sermons, and lack of romance or violence or death), but at least it is an effort to explain the data.

Chaucer · 02-20-2010, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

All right. I'm retracting that. Honestly, though, I have encountered some individuals who seriously ignore, it appears to me, the existence of same. That may not be some kind of institutional policy reflecting on any board, but it is a trend and a very frustrating one.

I also want to add that Abe, I believe, is oversimplifying here as well. My personal experience -- and it's strictly anecdotal -- is that plenty of atheists -- a number of them easily falling into the category of what some call "strong atheists" -- view Jesus as quite historical. In fact, a majority of the atheists I've known all my life have viewed Jesus as historical.

In addition, though, I've -- frankly -- personally encountered instead another divide among atheists on line that -- very frequently, in my personal experience -- translates into a split between different attitudes on social justice. (Abe brought up the topic of atheists as monolithically inclined to be mythicists, so I'm simply trying to be honest in telling him what my own impressions have been.) Often, I've found that when encountering an atheist on line who is comfortable with the status quo in society today (it needn't necessarily be the political status quo, just a status quo generally), who is (over here in the U.S., anyway) generally satisfied with things as they are, they seem more inclined to view Jesus as a myth. But when dealing with some atheist who is more of an activist in other areas (it can be health care reform or the ecology or priming the spending pump for the economic stimulus, whatever), that atheist is more inclined to view Jesus as historical.

I was struck by Fenton Mulley's remark about Jesus as a mere "mortal kook" model being of no interest for today. Because this is precisely what I've not encountered among atheists who are heavily engaged in things like writing to their congressman, being poll-watchers, attending rallies, signing petitions, etc. Those atheists who are keenly interested in social causes generally left of center, community organizing, etc., often -- in my experience -- view Jesus's social-gospel angle as being of some practical use as a cultural lever in moving reform along at a faster pace. This isn't to say that such atheists -- in my experience -- maintain that explicit Jesus quotes(!) are at all necessary to making a good impact at this or that rally. Nothing like that. But what such atheists do often reference is the number of more general premises concerning social justice that are particularly easy and effective to invoke. These premises frequently resonate with the Jesus sayings, together with the more modern norms established by landmarks like the United Nations Charter, the Civil Rights Act, and so on. So they would disagree with Fenton Mulley. I've even been surprised -- when they've been pressed -- at their saying that Jesus' social-gospel example is important to the causes of today.

Candidly, Abe, it has appeared to me that the social role reversal implicit in some Jesus sayings has actually attracted such activist atheists, while -- on the other hand -- a frequent refrain of those online atheists I've encountered who are, say, relatively happy with laissez-faire capitalist models and aren't such activists and more right of center, when not apolitical entirely, will not only assume that everything to do with Jesus is most likely a myth but will view the mere "mortal kook" model of Jesus as of no importance for us today at all.

This is why I was so struck by Fenton Mulley's remark at the mere "mortal kook" model having no real importance to today. It may even be that Fenton Mulley generally views Western society, particularly capitalist models like the U.S., as closer than not to a workable ideal, particularly with reference to the so-called social safety net, which he may even look on askance, up to a point, as being too cumbersome (I stress this is only a guess, but it reflects my personal experience of other atheists who have similarly discounted the importance of the "mortal kook" model to today).

Finally, this doesn't necessarily work out to a left/right divide. What it seems to match more is an institutional versus activist divide. This is why it makes sense to imagine that a totalitarian organization like the Soviet Union might be more mythicist than not, because there is a status quo element involved in the equation there, in which things as they are will be preferred to things as they aren't. This despite the clear fact that the Soviet Union was obviously left-leaning. In this instance, the institutional aspect trumps the political/ideological.

I'm wondering if Abe would be ready to revisit his assumption that all atheists are necessarily more sympathetic than not to the mythicist stance.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

There's too much cognitive dissonance in America for the bible to be of any use to the left/progressives in this country. The vast majority who vote and care what Jesus had to say are deep in the pocket of the right. They don't care about healthcare for everyone or social justice, they just do whatever dumb shit their church says so they can go to heaven. This usually involves trying to stop abortions, trying to get rid of the gays, keeping vegetables alive against their will, and making sure the overall god saturation level doesn't drop below 80%.

What you describe is exactly accurate for the American scene over the past two or three decades. But things are changing a bit now, and I have a feeling that certain movements like the Right to Housing amendment and the Ecological/Environmental reform band wagon may be the vanguard for that. These and similar efforts may change the demographics of who uses the Jesus sayings and why. My own anecdotal experience with off-line atheists is only one tip of that iceberg. Things are shifting considerably now and have been for the past year or so. Watch this story, as the saying goes.

Best,

Chaucer

Loomis · 02-20-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

My personal experience -- and it's strictly anecdotal -- is that plenty of atheists -- a number of them easily falling into the category of what some call "strong atheists" -- view Jesus as quite historical. In fact, a majority of the atheists I've known all my life have viewed Jesus as historical.

An atheist can arrive at atheism without knowing anything about mainstream religion, or Jesus, or the bible. All they have to do is hold the opinion that there are no gods. So your atheists might not count.

You’ve got to take into account human nature – because atheists are humans too. And if you ask them if 'Jesus existed' many of them will be caught off guard: They will feel embarrassed to not have ever considered the question, or to not be familiar with the details. Instead they will try to save face: They will feel obligated to voice an opinion – they will follow the path of least resistance - and that’s why you see all of the false positives. But don't confuse those "generic" atheists with the type of atheists who actually hold an informed opinion on if Jesus really existed - because there is a big difference.

My observation is that most atheists who actually take the time to study the issues do arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is a myth.

---------------

Btw - Unfortunately I see lots of lazy atheists who don’t know shit about this subject but nevertheless feel compelled to open their mouths. Maybe they think that the mythers are just pulling their opinions of their ignorant lazy ass like they do; and as such they feel that they are on a level playing field.

But they aren’t.

ApostateAbe · 02-20-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

You say "the gospel of Mark is not ashamed to quote Jesus as saying, "...this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened, unlike the gospel of John, dated to 90 CE, which merely makes an excuse for that rumor of such a prophecy."

First, I would like to know where in the Gospel of John there is "an excuse for that rumor of such a prophecy." I am unable to locate it.

More importantly, after making this prediction, the writer immediately make an excuse. He has Jesus admit that he doesn't really know the date when something will happen. He says "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. "

Here is the entire passage:

Quote:

13.30Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 13.31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 13.32 "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The first question that we have to ask is was the writer giving predictions for the future or talking about things that had already happened? From the sentence "And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days."

So, in the writer's mind the events have come about that will be a prelude and sign to the Apocalypse and they happened to the generation that Jesus addressed before they died out. Jesus is not predicting the actual apocalypse because "no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son..." It appears he knows the signs of the approaching apocalyse, but not the exact time.

The only thing that this does is date the text to beyond 70 C.E.. It does not set the date at 70, 80, 90, 100 or 150.

Let us say I am a Mormon writing a story about Joseph Smith who died in 1844. I want to say that he predicted the future accurately and I want to scare my audience into believing that Smith predicted the Apocalypse happening shortly around our time 2010. I might write something like this:

The reader might very well think, "Wow, Smith predicted the Civil War, the assassination of Lincoln and the writing of the Communist Manifesto, this proves he knew the future. If he thought that the end would come shortly after 1850, this being 2010, the end really has to be coming soon, any minute. Oh my God, I'm living on borrowed time. I better save my soul as soon as possible."

This is the effect that the gospel writer appears to me to be going for in his discourse. The only thing we get from this is that the writer is trying to scare his audience that the apocalypse is coming soon and he is writing after the generation that has seen the first signs has passed away -- post 70.

Since we cannot date this writing from this discourse, we are left to find other means to date this discourse. At least 20 Second Century Christian writers do not know of it. Since Justin Martyr and Celsus seem not to know about the Gospel of Mark in 180, we may suggest that close to 180 is a reasonable date. Irenaeus is the first writer we encounter who does know it, but it is only Eusebius who dates him to the 180's, as he may have been later, if he existed at all, Irenaeus is not a good witness to declaring that the gospel of Mark existed positively by 180.

Please be kind enough to point out the fallacies in these deductions, so I may see my errors.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I am happy to explain. The passage from the gospel of John I referring to is this one (John 21:20-24):

²⁰Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") ²¹When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

²²Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." ²³Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

²⁴This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

This was apparently an attempt to explain the failure of another phrasing of the same prophecy (Mark 9:1):

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

The four gospels were not originally part of one canon--each church had their own single gospel. The writer of the gospel of John could get away with explaining the prophetic deadline of rival churches as mere rumor.

You seem to be reading more than I am in the verse, "If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them."

This would be to answer the objection, "In the middle of all that war, distress and the sky falling, how are we supposed to come out alive?" And the answer is that the Lord decided to cut short that time period "for the sake of the elect."

You seem to think the predictions refer to the Roman attack against the uprising in Jerusalem, but the predictions seem to be on a worldwide scale, with signs in the heavens, worldwide death, and an invasion directly from heaven, and it would be followed by the establishment of the kingdom of God. You take 70 CE as a minimum date. I take it as a maximum, because the bulk of Jesus' prophecies did not happen by his stated deadline (the deaths of his listeners), which would be about 70 CE.

As further evidence for this interpretation, I already cited that passage from John, but there is another canonical writing, dated to the mid-2nd century, that makes another different excuse for the failed deadline. It is 2 Peter 3:3-8.

³First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." ⁵But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

[..]

⁸But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

They could not make the same excuse as in the gospel of John, probably because they accepted the authority of one of the synoptic gospels (all three of them contain both sets of prophetic deadlines).

Rick Sumner · 02-20-2010, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please STOP making unwarranted assumptions about others' motives.

Most anti-religious activists have no need for Jesus to be merely mythical. In fact, it is a distraction. It is quite sufficient for Jesus to be just human.

While I'm not sure how far ApostateAbe wishes to go with it, and so wouldn't presume to be offering any comment on his opinions, I have to wonder, would you honestly suggest that animosity toward Christianity doesn't colour the views of any mythicists?

aa5874 · 02-20-2010, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am happy to explain. The passage from the gospel of John I referring to is this one (John 21:20-24):

²⁰Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") ²¹When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

²²Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." ²³Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

²⁴This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

This was apparently an attempt to explain the failure of another phrasing of the same prophecy (Mark 9:1):

And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

The four gospels were not originally part of one canon--each church had their own single gospel. The writer of the gospel of John could get away with explaining the prophetic deadline of rival churches as mere rumor.

I hope you realise that John 21 appears to be a late addition to gJohn and was not added until after the writings of Tertullian or added at least around the end of the 2nd century.

Loomis · 02-20-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

I personally don't care one way or the other if Jesus existed or not and I have no interest in attacking Christianity with charges that Jesus didn't even exist. In a rational world any arguments against the truth of Christianity shouldn't even need to get that far. But we don't seem to live in a very rational world so I don't partake of such debates.

Your lack of imagination precludes a situation where the truthfulness of Christianity is not the issue; but where a person who genuinely wants to know if Jesus existed, researches the subject and arrives at the conclusion that he didn’t.

Your lack of imagination faults anyone who takes up that challenge.

That’s not nice. Please develop your imagination.

maryhelena · 02-20-2010, 09:33 PM

Update re the debate...

Quote:

Mythicism and John the Baptist

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/

James McGrath

I'm struck that most of the mythicists I've spoken with accept the existence of John the Baptist. It is not at all clear why this should be the case. If the Gospels, which are the first texts to mention him, are mythical, possibly intended as allegories and nothing more, then why should we treat John the Baptist as historical?

ApostateAbe · 02-20-2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Update re the debate...

Quote:

Mythicism and John the Baptist

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/

James McGrath

I'm struck that most of the mythicists I've spoken with accept the existence of John the Baptist. It is not at all clear why this should be the case. If the Gospels, which are the first texts to mention him, are mythical, possibly intended as allegories and nothing more, then why should we treat John the Baptist as historical?

Seems to be something of a good point. Probably the single good reason that MJ advocates may be motivated to accept the existence of John the Baptist is that Josephus gives a date for his death (36 CE) that seems to conflict with the date constructed from the Christian accounts (before 30 CE), so the passage in Josephus is very unlikely to be a Christian interpolation.

It is related to a point I have made--if John the Baptist apparently existed, why not Jesus? In order for the gospel Jesus to be merely a myth or otherwise non-historical, then the gospel accounts would have to tie him in to a number of characters that are attested to outside the gospels, including John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and the apostles Peter, James, and John. Not impossible, sure, but it seems to make the position all the more unlikely. If the evidence is somewhat flimsy to begin with, then I think it should be easy to see why the intellectual establishment strongly dismisses it.

maryhelena · 02-20-2010, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Update re the debate...

Seems to be something of a good point. Probably the single good reason that MJ advocates may be motivated to accept the existence of John the Baptist is that Josephus gives a date for his death (36 CE) that seems to conflict with the date constructed from the Christian accounts (before 30 CE), so the passage in Josephus is very unlikely to be a Christian interpolation.

It is related to a point I have made--if John the Baptist apparently existed, why not Jesus? In order for the gospel Jesus to be merely a myth or otherwise non-historical, then the gospel accounts would have to tie him in to a number of characters that are attested to outside the gospels, including John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, and the apostles Peter, James, and John. Not impossible, sure, but it seems to make the position all the more unlikely. If the evidence is somewhat flimsy to begin with, then I think it should be easy to see why the intellectual establishment strongly dismisses it.

Yes, the historicists have an issue with Josephus here re the death of John the Baptist - and I'm sure they would like to read between the lines and say something like, 'well, Josephus does not really say that JtB was killed just before the war with Aretes - could be a few years earlier'....

As to whether JtB was historical - my opinion - NO - that figure is just part of the gospel storyline - a storyline that could easily have been known to Josephus when he published Antiquites around 93/94 CE - the gospel of Mark usually being dated earlier than that date. If Josephus had not read the gospel of Mark - then perhaps he heard from someone who had....

And as for Josephus making hay while the sun shines - keep in mind that Rachel Elior has already accused Josephus of inventing the Essenes -ie that he made Philo's philosophical Essenes historical by dating them.

Keep in mind also that Josephus had others hats to wear besides his historians cap - a prophetic hat and interpretation hat, a dreamer and interpretation of dreams hat - and along with that - a direct line to god for help along the way...

Josephus, great guy - if one is aware of what one is dealing with...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.