aa5874

That statement also applies to Biblical stuff. All we have are a set of writings-quite a number of which are already universally declared as fraudulent.

Chris Weimer

Absolutely. For one, let's establish dependence. Michael Turton, among many others, have listed exaustively a dependency of Mark on Paul. Thus Paul must antedate Mark.

Here are a couple examples from Michael's website:

Paul also lacks any reference to John the Baptist, or any significant details about Jesus life, thus leaving us to wonder why he wouldn't, like others after him, use the gospels available. After the gospels gained prominence, they were used extensively.

Writing about Mark 2.16:

Further on:

I can go on.

We have thus established works which Paul must antedate.

The next is establishing when Mark was written. Earlier in this thread, Jeffrey Gibson goes on quite a bit about dating Mark to the first Jewish war, which I think is more than apt of a comparison. So that gives us the terminus ad quem for Paul.

I'm not decided about a terminus a quo yet, which depends on the death of Jesus. If we allow the gospels to have some tradition, then we could possibly place Jesus either in the time of John the Baptist or Pontius Pilate. Granted that most of the chronological history is fudged quite a bit, there's still pretty much unanimous agreement among Christian works to place Jesus around that time. After all, Paul doesn't give us a time frame for Jesus' life. Is there any reason why we should *not* accept the general frame as containing some truth? The only thing I can think of, spin, is your question on Aretas. I'm looking into that question a little more seriously as we go. It's definitely relevant to an accurate dating system.

jgibson000

Universally declared? When? And where?

JG

spin

I've pointed out elsewhere that Philippians is a hybrid document. It contains a core of one letter with other material written around it. It's difficult to make claims about Philippians being a totally Pauline effort.

But what does that say? Paul talks about other gospels. He doesn't say what they are.

This gets a big uh-huh. Christianity has always had a strong connection with gentiles. The notion that Peter was sent to the circumcised has been added into Galatians 2:7-8. This hardly establishes any relationship between Paul and Mark.

I wish you would. I was hoping for some historical indications, things that can be safely dated.

You maybe.

People were writing about going into exile in Babylon many centuries later. This is a mark of the literary tradition, ie that old contexts get reused long afterwards. Pursuing the line of thought that Mk 13 contains a historical record of the Jewish War is not particularly inspirational.

You need to establish something as on solid ground rather than fudging on all fronts.

The Aretas reference is so suspect that it holds no clues for dating. It can't reflect the historically verifiable control of Damascus under Aretas III. The historical context for Aretas IV does not permit him having control over Damascus, so apologetics aside, it simply can't help. The passage is compromised.

I see no dating for Paul, no dating for Mk and no way to determine any real relationship between Paul and Mk. But where there is a will, I'm sure you can find a way.


spin

Chris Weimer

Eh, spin, you caught me. I need time to get back to such in-depth research. I'll be back. In the mean time, think of Paul's thoughts on parousia, the temple destruction, and 2 Peter. Will return shortly. For now I gotta grab another beer and get over this bitch who's been plauging my life for the past three years.

Oh, and yeah, perhaps I should stop combing through Vork's work. It's the only thing I really had on hand at such a short notice. Will get back, by Hercules I swear it.

One last thing, we do have Ignatius as a cut off date for Matthew, which also is a cut off date for Mark. Will return to that too.

Take that back - one last thing - Tacitus and Suetonius writes of Christians as early as 115 CE, which means that some movement antedated them. I'll explain the relevance, *sigh*, when I get back.

spin

I wait with baited breath, though at the moment I'm fighting on several other fronts, so I'll probably see what you post before I spend time on this issue.

(I sees you have your priorities right, going for the beer. What happened to the accommodation?)

With the thought that Ignatius may have been writing in the 160s -- well, that's when Polycarp was writing wasn't it? --, I'd rather think that Marcion makes a surer cut-off point, with his gospel which is akin to Lk.


spin

spin

Stick with Pliny the Younger. That'll get you there. But it doesn't help us regarding Paul or the other people.

The Tacitus stuff is crap. The Suetonius stuff is just as sus.


spin

aa5874

See www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hippocrates.htm

Hippocrates, born 460 BC, and other doctors worked on the assumption that all diseases had a natural cause rather a supernatural one.

Preists believed that an illness such as epilepsy was caused by the Gods.

Hippocrates believed that with all other illnesses, epilepsy had a natural cause.

Mark 9:17, '.....Master, I have brought my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake unto thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

Mark 9;25, 'When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore and came out of him....

2500 years later, Hippocrates statement on diseases are universally accepted, the writings in Mark 9 are universally rejected by the Medical Fraternity.

See www.wrongdiagnosis.com/

Jesus appears to be a quack. Even believers universally agree with the Medical Fraternity.

jgibson000

All diseases? Can you provide some evidence for this claim from the writings of Hippocrates? And can you also provide documentation that all other doctors in the ancient world believed what Hippocrates allegedly did about the cause of diseases?

Did, say, the doctors in the temples of Asclepius in Jesus time accept this supposedly Hippocratic idea for the cause (as well as the cure) of diseases?

In the acnient world, priests were often doctors and doctors almost always priests. So this distinction between doctors and priests is simply too pat and anachronistic.

And, again, can you provide me with evidence that there were there no (or few) doctors in Hippocrates' time or later who disagreed with what Hipprcates allegedly believed?

All other? Can you document this? And can you document that he thought that the cure of this disease was also something that was not brough about by divine powerl?

You are confusing an alleged but notably undocumented universal rejection on the part of the medical community of Mark's (and almost the entirety of ancient medical and other literature's) idea of the cause of epilepsy with a (again undocumented) claim on the part of the modern medical community that Mark was consciously telling a lie about what the cause of epilepsy was. So your claim doesn't wash.

And in any case, you said that the Gospels, not just the "writings in Mark 9" or Mark's ideas about the cause of some diseases, were universally declared to be fradulent. This means that is more than doctors who have made the alleged declaration. It's everybody. And what beleive about the Gospels is public. So where might I find this declaration?

JG

aa5874

You ask ridiculous questions.