Diogenes the Cynic

I was reading somewhere recently (and now I can't remember where, I read so many theories I can't keep them straight) that the earliest Q community may have been a Cynically influenced Galilean, anti-Judah movement. That the Q sayings and Jesus movement were an expression of Galilean resentment of Judah in general and of the Temple authority and power structure in particular. There was more Hellenistic influence in the North, so Cynic style sayings and stories- especially stories that contained little zingers against Pharisees and Sadducees- were collected and attributed to "Jesus," eventually culminating in a story about a challenge to the Temple. In short, the movement was all about denying the authority of Temple (and Judah) and claiming a more direct and populist access to God (what Crossan calls the "unbrokered kingdom").


So the movement could have started in Galilee without necessitating HJ.


For the record, I am currently agnostic on historicity and until recently have leaned towards accepting a Historical Jesus. I also thing that defining what conditions would be sufficient to qualify a historical figure as HJ is rather murky and subjective in itself. I myself would define him as being minimally the author of a core sayings tradition who was crucified. YMMV.

Diogenes the Cynic

Incidentally, when I stated that there is no proof "Jesus of Nazareth" existed, I put the J of N phrase in quotes because I was responding in frustration to another's poster's repeated use of that title in conjuction with unsupported historical assumptions. My use of the phrase was intended to be somewhat facetious not a literal thesis on the whole Nazareth question (that's a quagmire I want no part of).

Amaleq13

Your initial response to Diogenes certainly seems to make a direct claim of historicity. When you speak of "proof" that Jesus of Nazareth existed, it is difficult to see how anything else was intended. Perhaps it is a language issue? Regardless, your subsequent argument has been shown to be without merit. Contrary to your initial claim, the contradictions of the nativities offer no evidence that "Jesus of Nazareth" actually existed.

I was referring to your apparent belief that Mark's story contained a "remnant" of an older story. If that was not your intent, I misunderstood what you were writing.

You didn't expect me to "make a fuzz" about your initial assertion which specifically focused on Nazareth? How very odd.

Two posts ago you attempted to change your position from asserting evidence that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed to "Jesus of Galilee". You were clearly focusing specifically on Nazareth at the beginning and then retreated when that position was shown to be deeply flawed. I've yet to see any support for this secondary position except that Mark "seems" to be relying on an older remnant.

I don't use Nazareth as an argument that Jesus didn't exist. I simply note that the fact the town cannot be shown to have existed in the early 1st century is problematic for anyone claiming it to have been the historical birthplace of Jesus.

You should take your own advice because that would have been a better argument than your initial focus on Nazareth.

I've already noted that the fact Mark depicts Jesus operating in Galilee does not appear to require any assumptions about the historicity of the depiction. You think it "seems" otherwise but you have not offered any supporting evidence for that judgment.

They are a problem for anyone asserting historicity.

In your future posts, kaas, I can only hope you offer more substance and less attitude. The former is interesting and appropriate to a rational discussion while the latter is not.

Perhaps you might want to start a new thread devoted to whatever argument or position you think can be sustained?

Diogenes the Cynic

Kaas,

Could you please clarify what your position is inre: HJ?

Are you suggesting that there may have been a "Jesus of Nazareth" (or at least of Galilee) who was incorporated into the myth but that he was not, per se Historical Jesus?

Or are you saying something else?

I think that Amaleq and I are both a little confused about precisely what it is you're trying to argue.

kaas

Amaleq,
you're repeating yourself without adding anything sensible. No use to response to that.

Diogenes,
I agree with almost everything you say, including your position on a HJ, though I don't see any reason to start with formulating a doubt while ending with a perfect definition: as being minimally the author of a core sayings tradition who was crucified.

What triggers my attention and pisses me off is when people so desperately want to proof that J didn't exist that they stop thinking logically and are willing to exept any argument (like Amaleq advocating the Nazareth-one, although he denies it) or theory (like Paul Cliteur, professor of philosophy, advocating Carotta), no matter how silly it is.

I understand your first NO-EVIDENCE-sentence, the one I responded to, and perhaps I would be more radicale in my sayings too when I lived in the US. But here, in Holland, even the vast mayority of orthodox Christians will LOL when you want to teach creationism at schools and creationsts, or people denying gays there rights etc. are no more than a folkloristic curiosity you don't fight, but try to preserve, like panda bears.

Sorry, Monday morning. Got to run now. If it's not clear yet, I'll try to respond later.

CX

All,

Let's try to focus on reasoned argumentation with a minimum of posturing and rhetoric. I'd hate to see a fruitful and interesting discussion derailed by poor form.

Thanks,

CX - BC&H moderator

Vorkosigan

Because of the differing Christologies of the Matt and Luke. They wanted someone born the son of God, so birthplace became important. But Mark's version of Jesus was the Beta version, no born son of God; instead, his Christology is Adoptionist. Jesus is the Adopted Son of God at the Baptism.

Then it becomes very simple. There is no Galilee; Mark fabricated it based on Isa 9:1, which suits his purpose ideally....

• Isa 9:1 Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan- (NIV)

Containing important Markan themes like the sea and Galilee. The rest of Isa 9:1

• 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.(NIV)

...is of course messianic flavored and admirably suited to Mark's purposes.

So Matt and Luke were stuck with the Galilee tradition, which they inherited because they copied Mark.

But wait! I personally would argue that Galilee has other bases as well. In the 1 Enoch and in Tobit northern Palestine is important. Additionally, Mark takes great pains to hack on the disciples, and painting them as Galileans -- practically non-Jews with a hick accent -- is a pretty good way. Further, Mark is paralleling the Elijah-Elisha cycle, which starts in the north and sort of winds its way down south and ends in Jerusalem, just like Jesus does.

Thus, there is no conflict between Bethlehem and Galilee historically because they belong in separate layers of the tradition. In Paul there is neither, in Mark Galilee, in Mt and Lk the whole durn tradition.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

kaas

Sure does. Cuts ice, to the point, exactly what I wanted. No time now, but I'll respond later.
PS: sorry for the stupid mistakes last time (there/their etc)

Amaleq13

Thanks for an excellent example of why Mark's Galilean locale does not require or even necessarily imply historicity.

I think the only evidence that carries such a requirement/implication is if one accepts the existence of Q given that the text implies the same area of operation for the Kingdom of God prophets but lacks the HB foundation of Mark. I can't remember if accept Q or not. I'm finding myself more agnostic about it lately.

kaas,

Your anger is clearly misdirected since you seem to have confused my rejection of an apparently poor argument (though it may have just been insufficiently explained) for a desire to embrace the opposite conclusion. I am equally interested in good arguments for a historical Jesus as I am in those against since, as I have already stated, I tend to find the evidence to be such a mess that I have not been able to obtain a reliable conclusion. Also, the "Nazareth argument", as I have also repeatedly explained, is not an argument for a mythical/non-historical Jesus but a significant, and certainly not silly, problem for any assertion that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a historical figure. If one cannot establish that a town existed, one clearly cannot establish that a specific individual was known to have come from that place.

How about we start over since there has clearly been some misunderstanding on both sides? And I would dearly love it to take place in a thread of its own so as to avoid the residual odor of this one that has been hijacked.

kaas

Sounds fine with me, but don't expect too much of me. I'm more than interested in this kind of topics, but have only little more than basic knowledge and hardly time. I didn't know f.i., of the Isa text, since Dutch bibles give the translation 'region' for galil, so you won't find it in a Concordance and for this one there is no reference at the bottom of the Mark page, unlike in many other cases (little over 110 refer. to the OT for Mark in ordinary Dutch bibles. No idea how internationally standardized that is).
And apparently I need to read the whole thread, since I have no idea what this hijacking is all about.
Well, anyhow, the most horrible part of about every American television series is the inevitable moment they start hugging. Seems we've reached that point now.
Glad to be on speaking terms again.