jon-eli

Sure, they can be read that way. But should they be?

And I look upon Capernaum as playing a role in Jesus mythology. "Home of the Paraclete." Mark clearly says that Capernaum is Jesus' home, not Narareth.

Or perhaps just a case of poetic license? I don't know that the gospels waxing lyrical about Jesus' birth necessarily makes him mythological.

That much I can agree with. To a par.

maryhelena

Should the gospels be read this way? Read as condensed, or backdating of historical elements? Well, in the debate over dating of the gospel of Mark, it does seem that Mark' reference to the stones of the Jerusalem temple being thrown down, is a back dating of the events of 70 CE - to give the appearance of prophecy. Hence, the gospel details are not accepted at face value but are looked upon as having other inferences

However, Mark does, at the event in Capernaum, have someone refer to Jesus, as Jesus of Nazareth. How long the gospel writers want to have the mythological Jesus reside at Nazareth, or Capernaum, is not really of any great significance. Both places are part of the story line.
.

Waxing lyrical about Jesus' birth? Agreed, that does not make for a mythological man - but three birth dates? And two of them given by one writer, Luke. We can maintain that he was contradicting himself - or we could simply accept that what he is writing about is not a history of a normal, human, historical, man.

aa5874

This statement does not make much sense. A Jew ( a non-Christian) living in Jerusalem or Galilee probably would have made serious investigation into the Jesus story as presented by the author of Mark.

Jews (non-Christians) would have considered some of claims made in gMark by Jesus as blasphemy. The author of Mark placed Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem, therefore Jews (non-Christians) would have been able to easily fact-check any historical claim about the Jesus as found in gMark.

Jews (non-Christians) would have been motivated to inquiry about Jesus, since it was claimed Jesus had the abilty to forgive sin.


Even if many Jews (non-Christians) were uneducated, the educated ones, like Josephus, would have been able check or look for any historical veracity of the Jesus story as presented in the writing called Mark.


I think you should care if you are here to have a chat.

But, probabilities need supporting data. You have falied to produce a single corrobarative source for your oral tradition probability.

You may be confusing guessing with probability.


Do you care if there was any any oral tradition or you are only interested in the simplicity of oral tradition?

You seem to think simplicity is a more valid than veracity.


So, why did you make the following statement?

You really have nothing but yet you continue to claim, as if you don't care, that oral tradition is the most parsimonious explanation.

jon-eli

I'm not as convinced by this as a lot of people are, since it parallels the destruction of the temple of Baal in 2 Kings. But it's fairly convincing still, and it brings us to a subtotal of 2 points of historical contact: this, and Pontius Pilate. And the sum is greater than the parts.

In Mark 1:9, which is very likely a later interpolation, Mark uses the Greek word "Nazaret," which does indeed mean "of Nazareth." But this is the only time he ever uses it. You're probably thinking of Mark 1:24, when the unclean spirit that has possessed a man, says: "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth?" But the word used here is "Nazarinos," which is an adjective and it translates as "Nazarene," which could mean anything at all; we won't ever know what Mark had in mind here. Of course, you're right to suggest that it has little bearing Jesus mythology... I just think it's interesting.

Heh. Well I contradict myself occasionally... as everyone likes to point out. If I wrote my own biography, it probably wouldn't be totally self-consistent. If I were to write, let's say, your biography, I guarantee that it wouldn't be self-consistent. But would that make you mythological?

I'm very nearly persuaded by the mythycist position, if only because Robert Price is the most level-headed guy in the universe. But I'm still not quite there yet. There's still a nagging feeling that something doesn't fit.

Why? You think they investigated everything that sounded the least bit dodgy? Investigated meticulously every person who made prophetic claims?

You display a complete lack of knowledge of Judaism if you maintain this. Please don't retroject your medieval Christian definition of blasphemy into the 1st century Roman empire as if it's relevant.

Which would have made him nothing more than a priest, since they can make atonement for sin on the sinners behalf.

And they would have done this, since they've got nothing better to do with their time?

I don't have an axe to grind, and I don't like how you've turned this into an mud-slinging match. I came here to learn, and to share what I know with others. A modicum of civility might be a tall order, but it's what I'm asking for.

It doesn't bother me if there was oral tradition or not.

The relevant part that that quote, is "I don't think oral tradition needs to be 'proved,' per se." Let's try this again:

If we assume the historicity of the Jesus story, then it must have existed in oral form at some point, unless Jesus had a court-reporter following him around and typing him memoirs in the shadow of the cross. We know for a fact that the story existed in written form at some point. The simplest explanation is that "Story A," the oral form, led directly to "Story B," Mark's gospel. We simply have no evidence of any intermediary forms, and Occam's razor dictates that we only postulate them if they are necessary... which they just aren't. You are trying to make a positive assertion, that there were intermediary forms, and the burden of proof is therefore on you to demonstrate their necessity. You have provided nothing so far that cannot be explained sufficiently by oral tradition.

JoeWallack

JW:
Trying to use Tertullian's references to Marcion to yield an early date for "Mark" has the following problems:

1) It's indirect. Tertullian to Marcion to "Luke" to "Mark".

2) Tertullian. Hostile to Marcion and a little man (stupid).

3) Confusion between Marcion and Marcion's followers. When Tertullian refers to "Marcion" who exactly does he mean?

4) Confusion over when Marcion was active. Irenaeus sez Marcion flourished under Anicetus c. 160.

You have to go through Against Marcion and try to harvest references to Marcion's Talmud "Antithesis" to date Marcion's use of "Luke". Good luck. Tertullian's argument is Internal, based on the competing texts, and not External which would be much better for dating. We also know going into it that Tertullian is wrong about almost everything:

1) Marcion's basic theological point is correct. The theology of the Gospel is completely different from the theology of the Jewish Bible.

2) Marcion is correct that Paul is a major source of the Gospel.

3) Marcion is correct that the Gospel shows that the disciples did not understand Jesus.

4) Marcion is correct as to the authentic Pauline corpus.

5) Marcion is correct that additional Gospels are bogus.

6) Marcion is correct that "Luke" was anonymous and that John, Matthew and Mark did not write the Gospels.

7) We can convict Tertullian's OCD of the crime of forging changes to move the Gospel away from Gnosticism.

There was potentially an easy way for Tertullian to illustrate that it was Marcion who changed "Luke". Just identify an orthodox user prior to Marcion. Tertullian can not do that and neither can OCD suggesting there was no orthodox user of "Luke" prior to Marcion.

Looking at Against Marcion, what is there that indicates an early date for Marcion's use of "Luke"?:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ullian124.html

JW:
"And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author". Well amen to that (every dogma has its day). So how does this or what follows help us date "Luke" early?

Cerdo preceded Marcion with the dualistic theology and Marcion already had Paul's letters so he didn't need a Gospel to get started. He may have discovered "Luke" during his career. I just don't see anything specific in Against Marcion to give a solid early dating for "Luke". On the other hand, I still see Marcion as the best general argument for an early dating of "Mark". Marcion may have been active c. 135 or earlier and may have discovered a "Luke" at or near that time that was even earlier and "Mark" would be even earlier than that.



Joseph

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

IamJoseph

Q: What impact and import if the Gospels were written post 70 CE - and the war with Rome, where over a million of Jesus' kin [other Jews] sacrificed their lives for their belief - and it is not recorded in the Gospels? This has really bugged me. :redface:

Susan2

Because there is no commandment, to date, that says, ‘Honor thy children’. Notice the plural. I will presume that if there is an answer you are looking for, it can’t get any simpler then that. Now the question begged, is there a need for an 11th commandment, or do we just continue with how we were sol(e)d...... as is........ pre-mark?

Which Mark, will be the first Mark to write a Dear J letter? Would that be checkmate, asked the Queen? Or, if one prefers checkers, King me says the Queen.

Honor thy children.


Forgive me JW for my brief interruption of this thread..............rather than plead the fifth, I will plea a distraction............. I couldn't help myself.

dog-on

The problem with Tertullian is his statement, early in AM to the effect that one should disregard the earlier editions of the work.

What was changed in the editions?

Hell, how do we know that the surviving edition was actually written by Tertullian and not a forger?

What is the earliest MS for Tertullian, 11th century or later?

Newton's Cat

Simon of Cyrene is supposed to be understood as being Simon bar Kochba.

I read somewhere that the earliest authentic text mentioning Christians is a Hebrew text written in the late 130s.

dog-on

I am unaware of any such "authentic" text. Do you have any additional information about it?