Amaleq13

It quote obviously does entirely explain both of these "objections". There was no Galilean mission by Jesus, therefore, any description of one must be a fabrication. As I have explained repeatedly, Mark's reliance upon the activities of the Q prophets is the most likely source of any trace of Gentile contact.

What Gentile mission? The only historical Gentile mission is by Paul and the other apostles.

The strictly Jewish origin was NOT invented but reflects the historical reality that the entire process began within a purely Jewish context. If we rely upon Paul's reports, the process was specifically begun by a revelation experienced by a particularly devout and highly respected Jew named "James".

When creating a narrative description of a living Jesus, Mark takes the historical Jewish origins of the movement and combines it with the historical activities of the Q prophets.

Given the historical constraints described above, how could the author of Mark have created such a thing and expect it to be credible? If his audience was primarily, if not exclusively, Gentile, these are exactly the people who would know quite well that Jesus conducted no ministry in their area.

I don't know how I can more clearly explain this. Here is the history that Mark had to deal with:

1) Original Risen Savior movement exclusively Jewish and urban (Jerusalem) with apparently no interest in Gentile involvement

2) Q prophets operating in a primarily rural environment with had no obvious Gentile mission though they may not have opposed such an idea

These two historical constraints, probably known by Mark's audience, completely explain the evidence of the text as it stands. There is no realistic room for Mark to fabricate a fullblown Gentile mission. Your "point" is irrelevant for any attempt to undermine the mythicist position. You must look elsewhere.

Unless you can provide an example of how Mark could have fabricated a Gentile mission, despite these known historical facts, you cannot sustain this argument.

Layman

What is the evidence for "Q prophets operating in a primarly rural environment"--by which I guess you mean Galilee?

Why don't we start with Jewish sources for such prophets at this time in Galiliee?

Amaleq13

The contents of the reconstructed Q source. Galilee has been suggested as a possible base of operations or origin-point but the prophets appear to have focused their activities in a variety of smaller villages and towns all around Jerusalem. The Q prophets were wanderers much in the vein of those described in Didache. The conclusion is ultimately based on the references to specific locations in the text but other clues to a rural focus include references to farming and herding sheep. Kloppenborg discusses the apparently rural setting in Excavating Q and Crossan (Birth of Christianity) contrasts the urban "Pauline" traditions with rural Q.

I'm not sure I understand your question but the Q movement appears to have been primarily, if not exclusively, Jewish. Scholars disagree about whether they included a Gentile mission but most seem willing to accept that they wouldn't have necessarily opposed such a thing.

Layman

We've already taken a big leap without sufficient foundation. How did you reconstruct the relevant Q source?

Suggestions are not evidence.

Can you provide references to the Didache supporting this suggestion?

Why do you postulate multiple prophets? And why do you call them prophets? And why do you assume Q is the only source as to their beliefs?

My question is what Jewish evidence do you have for these Q prophets. For example, Josephus describes various Jewish sects and was quite familiar with Galilee. Does he mention these Q prophets? Are their oral traditions preserved in the Talmud that refers to Q prophets in Galilee?

That kind of evidence.

Vinnie

Have you read either of those works or are you going off of what others say?


Speaking of Kloppenborg, Formation on Q and Gentiles, the pericope I will be hitting later dealing with the centurion which adds Q to my argument for paucity of Gentile material!!!:

p. 120 "It would be unjustified to ascribe all of these modifications to Q redaction. More likely, this tendentious development of healing story into an apology for Gentile onclusion occured already in the oral stage. Ints reception into Q is to be seen in the context of Q'a polemic against Israel's lack of ecognition of the authority of Jesus and his message, and Q's interpretation of Gentile faith as an unheilszeichen for Israel." [Formation Q Kloppenborg]

Also you rely heavily on Doherty at times but he believes that Q had primarily non-Jewish roots at its core level!!!! Has he not articulated those sentiments in print?

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13 wrote:
If we rely upon Paul's reports, the process was specifically begun by a revelation experienced by a particularly devout and highly respected Jew named "James".

Where did you get that from? Give us the quote(s).

Best regards, Bernard

Vinnie

So when Doherty argues that James believed like Paul and that no Jew would accept such a blasphemous statement which describes a human Jesus with such a high Christology as that reserved for God alone in stict Jewish monotheism he is surely incorrect?

On page 19: "it is especially inconceivable that among jews. The Jewish mind had an obsession against associating anything human with being God.." As he went on to note that Jews in the thousands bore their neck before swords when to protest against carrying of Roman military standards bearing human images into the city of Jerusalem.

So according to your whole thesis, we should actually expect Gentiles to have created a Gentile ministry and not vice versa. You have to explain the existence of an entire Jewish mission. Mark surely did not make this up as it is inherited tradition that predates him!

Did these early Jewish Christians who believed in a purely cosmic Jesus invent them?

Another double standard (i just exposed one of yours in the Paucity of Gentile related material thread!):

Given the fact that Jesus started off a cosmic Christ myth, how could the author/s of whoever made up the Jewish mission create such a thing and expect it to be credible? The audience presumably, was primarily, in ot exclusively Jewish and these are exactly the people who would know quite well that Jesus conducted no ministry in their area.

Further, these Jews should have been shocked at the high Christology applied to this Galilean rabble-rouser crucified by Rome for insurrection according to Doherty.

Vinnie

Vinnie

and yeah, thats looks pretty dubious from my perspective. I believe GHebrews has Jame's appearance first though. Of course dating this work is another matter!

Vinnie

Layman

I third this one.

Where does Paul say that his faith "was specifically begun by a revelation experienced by a particularly devout and highly respected Jew named 'James'"?

Amaleq13

I didn't reconstruct anything. I'm convinced by the arguments of scholars in favor of the existence of a shared source document used independently by Mt/Lk. I also accept the arguments I've read that Mark was familiar with the community that text is understood to represent. If you don't accept that "foundation", I suppose you aren't likely to accept conclusions based upon it.

The evidence is in the text and you are free to read the arguments for yourself. I found them convincing enough.

You seem to have lost sight of the purpose of my posts. I'm providing Vinnie a mythicist response to his claims, not describing or defending why I take a mythicist position.

This was my personal impression after reading both. I think Crossan might make a similar observation in Birth of Christianity but I'd have to check my copy when I get home.

Multiple prophets are instructed how to behave in Q and the text, itself, is understood to represent a community or at least a loosely organized collection of people.

Because they uttered prophesies? I would think this would be an accurate descriptor even if they were only repeating the prophecies of Jesus. Second-hand prophets, perhaps?

I don't but that's all we got.

Q is Jewish and so, apparently, were its members.

No to both as far as I know but I'm not sure it would be reasonable to expect a rural and apparently fairly unknown movement to get much outside "press".