Vorkosigan

The criterion of embarrassment tells us nothing here, because clearly the person who introduced the tale, Mark, is not embarrassed by it.

Luke (and even later authors) are embarrassed by the predictions of the imminent arrival of Jesus after the destruction of Jerusalem, so they rewrite, obfuscate, and explain. it hardly needs to be explained that this does not make the predictions historical. Likewise, the existence of a story at Time A that people in Time B might find embarrassing is hardly a good deployment of the embarrassment criterion, which in any case is not very useful as a historical criterion.

As I said earlier, because in Mark, the originator of the tale, it was baptism that made him the son of god. Mark is riffing on Paul, who said that baptisms made one the son of god. And the rest, as they say, is history.

And your question again assumes that he was seen as the son of god when baptized. Of course in Mark, he is not. He isn't god's son till AFTER baptism, which indicates what baptism is for.

Vorkosigan

archibald

Start a thread on gJohn being the first gospel and make your case, maryhelena. I have not yet heard a convincing one.

Vorkosigan

Baptism I discussed above.

"Nazareth" is a back-edit from Matthew into Mark. Mark never refers to Nazareth save in 1:9 where it looks like an interpolation. In Mark Jesus' home is in Capernaum (2:1). It is Matt who has to apologize for the invention of Nazareth as J's home town.

There is no need to explain Jesus' skittish powers since supernatural powers don't exist and no experience with them can be historical. A probable reason for the malfunctions is because Jesus in Mark is not so much the Messiah as he is a stand-in for the experience of the believer who has become a son of god.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I'd like to see that too. I doubt any reasonable case can be made for John being the first Gospel.

archibald

Fair point. It only tells us (assuming we have the gospels in the right order) that it was increasingly embarrassing.

GMark seems to me like a reasonably 'bare bones' story. No birth narrative, no (or very little) after-crucfixion narrative. Most of the 'miracles' are more like less miraculous healings (or attempted healings). The picture being presented is of a slightly less 'divinely perfect' character. The suggestion is that, as with faulty powers, it was not especially contradictory initially ( ie. for Mark), and that, despite everything, he had heard the stories, and included them for that reason.

Yes, but equally, Paul may have said that because he had heard that Jesus was baptized. On the other hand, he may not. Why would it be in the story at all? The rest of us farties might need our sins cleansed, as Paul implied, but the messiah?

Yes, but don't you think it's odd that a messiah should need his sins cleansed?

archibald

Sure, but.........this doesn't seem to address the problem of why not make his birthplace more 'OT significant' in the first place.

Again, this may be true, but doesn't explain why a fictional messiah would be given faulty powers.

Not sure you aren't reading something convoluted into Mark. The text describes Jesus. I thought the general mythicist argument was that mark was writing allegory about him?

I mean, you may be right. It just doesn't seem like the better specualation, to me.

maryhelena

My approach is to deal with the gospel storyline - dating manuscripts is not some sort of trump card that can override storyline developments. Below is a chart I posted a little while ago. In fact this chart could be further developed if the Nativity gospel of James was added - a gospel which seems to be the first to put forward a link between JC and JtB. The Nativity gospel of James was the subject of the following thread:

John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=298696

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

(Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate's appointment to office. )

Stringbean

The QUESTION is not STUPID. I ask you to provide the above you could not. Reading back through this thread you still have not. Instead you duck and dodge and move goal posts. If Jesus was such an historical character then this evidence should be easy to present, cough it up.

archibald

The question was stupid, because it's irrelevant. We don't have archeological or forensic evidence of that contemporary nature for hundreds of similar minor figures. We don't even have it for Alexander the Great, FFS, who is an entirely greater kettle of fish. And contrary to what you say, we have a lot of documentary evidence, and it isn't late either. Your whole 'evidence' point is completely straw.

Stringbean

Well then cough it up dude........you can't because it don't exist. You say there is documentary evidence? Then give Primary and Contemporary sources that have not been tainted by a later Christian hand. Or you just going to move goal posts as your partner continually does? I am waiting.