aa5874

Once Jesus was an ordinary man then the baptism of Jesus had ZERO significance like all the other ordinary men who were baptized BEFORE Jesus.

Also, John could NOT have been baptizing for the REMISSION of Sins or else he would probably be STONED to death by Jews for leading people astray.

The REMISSION of Sins was done through Sacrifice of Goats in Jewish Law.


Mark 1.4-8 The Baptism of Repentance for remission of Sins would have been contrary to Jewish Law and tantamount to Blasphemy


Mark 11.7-8 It must be clear that the whole John the Baptist story and the Baptism of Jesus is a MYTH fable, a Holy Ghost story, and has ZERO historical value.

Vorkosigan

Or unless you've studied the text. It's incredibly where an a priori commitment to sound methodology can lead you.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack

JW:
The primary issue of this Thread is Relationship and not conclusion. Relationships are relatively more objective.

I have Faith that if you thought a Markan story consisted entirely of the Impossible, you would conclude that it was "likely fiction". A key question this Thread asks is how close do you have to get to thinking a story entirely fiction before you conclude "likely fiction". I also have faith that you agree that there is a relationship here between the amount of fiction and the conclusion. So how close do you have to get?

You seem to have no problem going the other way and concluding a story is "likely historical" based on the extent of the Possible. Shouldn't it work both ways?

JW:
I likewise am HJ but I don't think that automatically or even establishes a presumption that any story in "Mark" is "likely historical. They all need to be evaluated with a Scientific Methodology that includes criteria for Fiction. These individual stories may be better evidence of a broad description of Jesus, Teacher & Faith Healer who died against his will, than a specific event.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

Your suggesting is WHOLLY absurd. Unreliable sources with implausibilities and known fiction cannot be used by themselves to ascertain VERACITY and WITHOUT external corroboration.

Your suggestion is tantamount to using ONLY PERJURED witnesses to determine the truth.

It must ALSO be noted that a Plausible story does NOT determine what happened in the past. Undetected Perjury depends on Plausibility.

JoeWallack

JW:
When Mitt says that his position on baptizing is X(tian) there is no reason to regard that as changed unless you have a prior commitment to the view that Mitt is a flip-flopper (credibility). Your statement above reminds me too much of the classic scene from the classic Animal House where Flounder advocates himself as acceptable because "My brother was a member and that makes me a legacy. I heard that legacies automatically get asked to pledge."

Boone & Otter: Normally that's true. Unless the pledge was a real closet-case (look at each other). Like Fred.

There is very good reason to think that "When Mark says that Jesus came from Nazareth to be baptized by John" this may be Fiction. Like, I don't know, say a Historical Methodology that includes criteria that detect Fiction.

On a Macro level, "Mark" consists primarily of the Impossible, Improbable and Contrived, so the default position for any Micro story is that it is Fiction. This means the default position for any individual item in a story is also Fiction. Since we have identified such a significant amount of "Mark" as Fiction, we should be starting our analysis of historicity with the Fictional criteria. If they score high on the fictional testing, than they probably can not be rescued by the criteria for History, especially since these criteria will be relatively weak due to Age, Identity, Location and Credibility.

On to:

Did Jesus come from Nazareth:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Let's evaluate with those pesky criteria I identified to detect fiction:

1) Impossible claims

It's possible Jesus came from Nazareth. If it was not, this discussion would be over.


2) Contradictions

The earliest Patristic evidence has doubt that Nazareth was in Galilee at the time:

Kartagraphy Markoff, Missing the Mark. Did "Mark" Get Any Geography Right?

1 - We have problems in general with "Mark's" claimed geographical relationships.

2 - The Protevangelium of James - = An attempted harmony of the Infancy narratives that does not mention "Nazareth".

3 - Sextus Julius Africanus = Says that "Nazara" is in Judea

4 - History of Joseph the Carpenter = Says that "Nazareth" is by Jerusalem.

5 - Justin Martyr = Implication that "Nazareth" was in Judea

3) Improbable claims

A vastly underrated criterion. Apologists jump on the Improbable being Possible, like Lechner on Miggs, and summarily dismiss it as any type of evidence (if it goes against their conclusion).

There is pressure on the existence of Nazareth in Galilee in the 1st century. The only agreed upon physical evidence seems to be tombs. If there was such a Nazareth presumably it would have been smaller than John (Carson's) set-up line. The smaller Nazareth was, the more unlikely it would be that anyone would have come from it. The related Improbability would be that a Torah expert (such as Jesus is described) would come from there.


4) Parallels to non-historical sources

"Nazareth" sounds reMarkably like "Nazarene" from The Jewish Bible and "Nazarene" is not a place in the Jewish Bible.


5) Thematic motivation

Ding! Ding! Ding! Seems like a tremendous coincidence that "Nazareth" is so similiar to "Nazarene" from The Jewish Bible which means consecrated to God, a primary theme of "Mark", that Jesus is than referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene".


6) Contrivance

See 5). Jesus is said to come from "Nazareth" at the start and before his 1st miracle, a spirit identifies him as "Jesus the Nazarene". Contrived. We also have the Impossible connection here. We also have a nice literary ironic balance with Jesus coming from the tombs of Nazareth at the Start and Jesus the Nazarene leaving the Tomb at the End. Additionally, "Mark" has a primary theme of Jesus being a Nobody BB (before baptism). What better Way to illustrate than have Jesus come from Nowhere (so to speak).


7) Necessity of tying to other stories

See 6). "Mark" uses the Nazareth/Nazarene connection a number of times so the usage has Scope.

The above is definitely enough to doubt that Jesus was from Nazareth and prevent the assertian from being a historical fact. I think it is enough to conclude that Jesus likely did not come from Nazareth. You may disagree with the conclusion but the important thing is the evidence. Don't ignore criteria for Fiction.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

ApostateAbe

There is a book published titled, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (or via: amazon.co.uk), and it is right now being filmed for cinema in New Orleans. The story is clearly fiction. They took actual historical persons, places and events and styled them like a fictional narrative.

The gospel of Mark may be analogous, but I think we need also to consider the elements and aspects of the gospel of Mark that are characteristic of ancient biography and NOT expected for fiction. Does ancient fiction have long rambling moralistic sermons by the leading hero, or does ancient biography? Does ancient fiction have a complete lack of moral faults or romantic entanglements by the leading hero, or does ancient biography? Does ancient fiction have a series of miracle stories conducted by the leading hero designed to elevate the status of the hero in the minds of the reader, or does ancient biography? Does ancient fiction have an arbitrarily-organized series of otherwise-disconnected plot points, or does ancient biography?

Moreover, we should not assume that the decision of whether or not the entire story is generally fiction is a function of how much the claims found within it are false. I don't think we should conflate the term "false" with the term "fiction." Most of the claims found within ancient biographies are likewise false, but not fiction.

So, I have no appropriate answer to the poll. I don't find it useful to quantify the number of false claims within an ancient writing. That isn't how I try to make sense of it.

aa5874

Well, tell them to use the transfiguration, the walking on the sea and the temptation of Jesus by Satan on the pinnacle on the Temple.

Those events are found in your "History" books called Gospels.


You ASKED rhetorical questions. You must be confused.

We have SUETONIUS "Lives of the Twelve Caesars".

Suetonius "Lives of the Twelve Caesars" UTTERLY destroys you. Suetonius wrote 12 biographies of Roman Emperors and they are nothing like the Myth fables in the Gospels.

Even though Suetonius wrote about the 12 most powerful characters of the Roman Empire over a period of over a hundred years there are details of the birth, death, parents, children, wives, place of birth, residency, physical appearance and others information that are compatible with biographies of today.

The Jesus stories are COMPATIBLE with the myth fable of Plutarch's "Romulus". Although Romulus was described as a man with a human brother called Remus born of the same WOMAN he was MYTH and when he died he Ascended to heaven and his body VANISHED.

The fathers of the Caesars were accounted for in The Twelve Caesars.

In the NT, The father of Jesus was God or a Holy Ghost.

JoeWallack

Let's add to this Codex Sinaiticus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaiti...xtual_variants

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_1

More evidence for a Nazareth in Judea.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki