dog-on

Join the club, however I am hearing things like this more and more from the Establishment, specifcally from those arguing for an HJ.

Has there been some massive paradigm shift in the so called consensus, within the past few years, that I may have missed?

MrMacSon

Perhaps, but not if that composite figure changed again, or if the story changed - the final figure or the reflection might have looked quite different in a generation or two.

maryhelena

Sure, if a later element, from a historical figure, or simply authorial creativity, was a later edition to the JC storyboard - then those living earlier would not have that specific element available as a reference, or indicator. For instance; the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus has no apocalyptic. Hence, those who knew that storyline would not be on the look out for an historical apocalyptic JC. However, that said, I doubt that earlier inclusions in the composite JC figure, i.e. historical figures whose life stories influenced the creation of that literary figure, would be just dropped. History moves forward - earlier history cannot be side-stepped. Where the JC story is going, development wise, is no more important than where it has come from...Remember where one has come from - and all of that....

aa5874

You are merely Speculating and is NOT providing any actual evidence.

"If this" and "if that" has NO real value.

You ought to know that people can make False statements or fabricate events during their own lifetime.

In any event, the very stories in gMark do NOT even support any claim that it was written early since they would have been known to False.

The fiction stories in gMark that Jesus fed thousands of people with a few pieces of bread and fish, Instantly healed Incurably diseases, like the blind, deaf and dumb with SPIT, raised the dead, walked on water, transfigured, and resurrected would have been KNOWN to be False the earlier gMark was written.

And in addition, we have NO written text identified as gMark that is dated by Paleography or scientific means to the 1st century.

All the DATED evidence supports the claim that gMark was written LATE, that is, some time AFTER the Works of Josephus. The DATED DSS do NOT reveal any knowledge of a character called Jesus Christ.

hjalti

Yeah... how does Stark for example explain all the latinisms in Mark, and if I am not mistaken he even uses latin words as an explanation of greek ones. That doesn't sound like something a Palestinian Jewish Christian would do when writing in Palestine to Palestinian Jewish Christians.

What else are you thinking about Vork? Mark's anti-nomianism? His geographical mistakes?

thief of fire

The Latin loan words in Mark (or most of them) have never struck me as that difficult to explain without having to resort to a Roman audience.

Census (κῆνσος, “poll tax,” 12:14), centurio (κεντυρίων, “centurion,” 15:39, 44, 45), denarius (δηνάριον, a Roman coin, 12:15), legio (λεγιών, “legion,” 5:9, 15), modius (μόδιος, “peck measure,” 4:21), praetorium (πραιτώριον, “governor’s official residence,” 15:16), quadrans (κοδράντης, a Roman coin, 12:42), sextarius (ξέστης, quart measure, “pitcher,” 7:4), speculator (σπεκουλάτωρ, “executioner,” 6:27), and flagellum (φραγελλόω, “to flog,” 15:15).

Considering Palestine was under Roman rule their apprearance doesn't seem that odd if one were to argue for a palestinian origin of Mark.

aa5874

Are we just going to go over the same erroneous claims made by Ehrman???

It is probably well established that the author of gMark was NOT a Jew and was NOT familiar with the Jewish custom of burial.

The author of gJohn corrected the author of gMark and claimed the dead body of Jesus was prepared for burial with spices BEFORE it was buried ACCORDING to Jewish custom.

Even the Jesus story in gMark shows that the author really knew NOTHING of a real human Jesus since virtually all the events associated with Jesus from Baptism to Resurrection are really Fiction--not only they events did NOT happen--most of them could NOT have happened even if Jesus was human.

The use of Aramaic words can be explained the very same way the use of Latin and Greek words are explained. The author of gMark lived among people who knew Aramaic, Greek and Latin.

Solo

Take it easy, Michael ! Ehrman evidently wrote the book to make mythicists climb walls. If he thinks he will get the likes of Joel Marcus agree that Mark was written in Palestine by Jewish Christians innocent of Paul, and if he can convince the academia that an Aramaic Q reaches back to the 30's, good for him ! Good for Christian Science ! If he accuses mythicists of making things up, excellent ! You said yourself that his book will help mythicism.

There is enough of Mark left after the Orthodox Corruption that the truth will come out eventually. You have seen me argue here that the reference to 'the parables' in 4:10-12 is a koan, or part of what call 'a quibble of Mark' in which he reveals his coded discourse, probably convinced that it could not be broken by outsiders. Hoi paraboles Iesou use transparently both subjective and objective genitive. His gospel mystery is parables by Jesus wrapped in parables of Jesus: whatever 'evidence' cooked up by the scholarly consensus is for nought. It will not stand.

Thom Stark lectured to me about NT mainstream. I told him there is big problem with claiming a scholarly consensus around Jesus. Mark made sure of that in the lampoon on biblical experts "swooping down" on Jesus from Jerusalem, claiming that Jesus was casting demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons. Whether Jesus was historical or not, his spirit proved them wrong !

What I am saying is that if Mark was impossibly bright and had an uncanny insight into things, it was not from following a group-think.

Best,
Jiri

Vorkosigan

1. Geographical mistakes but not just the errors, but the way he treats geography as completely irrelevant: "3:7: Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea 8: and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him." You mean the crowds come up from Jerusalem all the way to Galilee? Puh-lease. He is just tossing in place names.
2. Explaining what Jews do -- they claim he's writing to Jews but he says in 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4: and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) It's quite obvious from this side comment that he's not a Jew and is explaining for people who are not Jews. There's never a sense of "we" in any of his comments on Jews. Plus he really doesn't know much about Jews as Matthew had to correct things....
3. He thinks the puddle in Galilee is an ocean.
4. He quotes the Septaugint in Greek in 7:8 when J is disputing with the Pharisees but the Greek and Hebrew are different at that point -- J flings a Greek text at the Pharisees?

etc. The writer of Mark is obviously not a Palestinian Jew. That is sheer apologetic fantasy.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is not Ehrman's claim, and is not any kind of consensus.

Ehrman is correct that there is little scholarly dispute that some of the Markan pericopes have some kind of Aramaic origin - not just the Aramaic words, but also Greek words and phrases that translate literally into Aramaic idioms, but which are not Greek idioms. For instance "flesh and blood" is an Aramaic idiom, but not a Greek one, so if sarx kai haima is seen in the Greek, this strongly suggests the original pericope was Aramaic.

People may agree or disagree with that conclusion, or may say that there should be more dispute, but it's accurate to say that mainstream NT scholarship does pretty much accept that some kind of Aramaic sources fed into the Markan tradition.