JoeWallack

JW:
Actually in our good sCoptic/bad sCoptic routine, spin is the nice one.

Regarding the best explanation explanation, I'll never play the Lottery and you'll play it once, so you are more likely to win the lottery than me. Are you likely to win it (and for that matter isn't Christianity just legalized gambling? You give up logic and reason in this life to try and win logic and reason in an eternal life). There's logic to your best explanation explanation that the clearly failed doomsday predictions of "Mark" are better explained by history but how much better?

As has been explained to you Ad Nazorean, we have a Source problem here. Who said what Jesus supposedly said? This is the [understatement]more[/understatement] important question. Ignoring this question does not solve the problem. Source is primary. Text is secondary. understand dear Reader? In addition to no Source, we have no Provenance.

Regarding trying to mine history from the text you also have the thematic opposition of "Mark" discrediting supposed historical witness. If "Mark" doesn't believe what historical witness said about Jesus than he believes what historical witness did not say about Jesus (just like the only known witness before him, Paul). Specifically, "Mark" shows the supposed historical witness grooving on Jesus' supposed Teaching & Healing Ministry and having an El-lergic reaction to Jesus' mention of anything deadly. Isn't the better explanation that "Mark" thought the supposed historical witness witnessed a worldly Jesus rather than an other worldly Jesus and therefore the source of doomsday Jesus is Paul/"Mark" rather than historical witness?

Unlike "Mark", "Matthew"/"Luke" want to credit historical witness to Jesus, but they use as a base a story ("Mark") which has a primary theme of discrediting historical witness. Isn't the better explanation that they had no access to historical witness?

In between Source and Text is genre. I have faith that even you would now confess that I have demonstrated that using Burridge's criteria, "Mark" parallels better to Oedipus than Julius Caesar. If I include proper criteria to distinguish Bios from Greek Tragedy, such as Plot, Mission, Style and extent of the Impossible, it's not even close. Is the better explanation of Greek Tragedy that it is Fiction? Do I than proof-text on one or a few points that Jesus was not a doomsday guy? No, because than I would sound like you:

1) You need to consider ALL points.

2) Better explanation does not = Likely.

You have the Source problem and Age problem and no good ancient parallels. What other ancient has the best evidence for existence consisting of:

1) First witness explicitly claims primary source of Revelation.

2) First witness with Scope has primary theme of discrediting supposed historical witness.

Regarding supposed Authority, as Edward said in the classic Braveheart, "The trouble with Scotland is that it's full of Scots." So too the trouble with Christian Bible scholarship is that it's full of Christians. That C BS (Christian Bible scholarship) assumes HJ and agrees with your point above means little. C BS is an Art and not a Science as evidenced by the observation that conclusions are directly related to level of religious belief. So as the Preacher said in the classic Blazing Saddles, You're on your own son of man." and so far you haven't found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMfasIbOn1g



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

ApostateAbe

Thanks, Joseph. This is getting too far back into the background premises and basic historiography, so maybe this argument about how to make sense of the character profile of Jesus in the gospels doesn't work for those who think maybe it could be just as probable that the gospels are satirical literature as they could be evangelistic cult texts, or whatever you may think. If you think that this explanation is the best explanation, then it follows that it is most probable, though, as you say, not necessarily highly probable, but I think maybe that is the best that I can do. I think this argument, like so many others, works only for those who share the basic understanding of what the gospels are--early Christian documents written as religious scriptures for early Christian churches. I am not willing to argue too much of those basics, but I will go over some points briefly.

We don't need to have provenance to make probabilistic judgments of historical evidence, though provenance would certainly help. When we lack knowledge concerning some of the issues and there is ambiguity, then it does not follow that all explanations are on the table and one explanation is about as good as another. We make judgments with the data that we have. And I figure that we can make some pretty good probability estimates about who wrote the gospels based on the contents of the gospels. They have all of the appearance of being composed by Christians who wanted to evangelize. They are all about the life of an idealized character who had a religious message closely resembling a religious cult. The author of Luke made it explicitly clear in the beginning that he wanted his audience to trust his claims. Each gospel has a religious perspective, which we know through comparative analysis. Matthew and Luke change the wording of their source Mark, for example, Matthew to be more suited for a Jewish audience and Luke to be less physically apocalypticist.

I recommend Bart Ehrman's introductory textbook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is a thorough overview of the basics of critical New Testament scholarship, helping a reader to make good sense of the New Testament in the process, which also may help you understand my reasons for many of the basic assumptions.

aa5874

BART EHRMAN has SIMPLY PRESUMED there was an historical Jesus an OFFERS NO credible historical sources of antiquity for HJ.

Bart Ehrman has ALREADY put his foot in his mouth when he declared that the NT is NOT historically reliable.

Why are HJers any different to the MULTIPLE of Religions where each Church REJECT and ACCEPT parts of the Jesus stories WITHOUT a single credible historical source for Jesus?

You ALREADY knew in advance of posting that even Scholars have NOT supplied any credible historical sources for HJ.

It makes ZERO sense for HJ to have been KNOWN by the Populace to be a man who could NOT remit Sins, was NOT the End of the Law, did NOT resurrect and did NOT Ascend through the Clouds and still be worshiped as a God by the very people who claimed they did NOT worship men as Gods.

HJ makes NO Sense.

It is more likely that Jesus was just a story like Marcion's PHANTOM without birth and Flesh.

ApostateAbe

In another thread, I said, "I argue my position with a pattern of history that I propose does not strongly depend on such subjectively-judged criteria. Find a myth of a human doomsday cult leader who was merely-myth, not based on a character of the same rough profile."

Spin responded:
I figure that biased modern notions don't have a lot to do with it. A "doomsday cult" is an objective sociological pattern that we see in all cultures and religions of the world. Yes, our observations of them are somewhat limited to the modern era, when evidence is most plentiful. If you think you have good reason to suspect that this social phenomenon was somehow different in the ancient world, then it would help to explain why. I believe that the diversity of the cultures that have it today, and its close affinity with primitive authoritarian human behavior, is a very good reason to accept the probability that it existed in the ancient world. We most certainly find doomsday prophecies in the ancient world, including the culture of Jesus outside Christianity (the book of Daniel and the book of Enoch, for example). Also, it is important to realize that I am not depending on a specific definition of either "doomsday" or "cult." A "doomsday" is a belief that terrible calamities will happen to the larger society in the immediate future, and a "cult" is a group of people who adhere to the will of the leadership with very excessive zeal. Even when such definitions are expanded, we seem to have no examples of merely-mythical doomsday cult leaders.

spin

How do you say "doomsday cult" or its dynamic equivalent in Greek, Latin, Hebrew or Aramaic?

Expressing a lack of understanding of either Daniel or 1 Enoch doesn't further your cause.

ApostateAbe

I don't know. You got me there. Review the OP to find out why I find a doomsday cult in the Christian gospels, regardless.
OK, thanks for that.

spin

Will that change the fact that you are being anachronous in your approach? You form an opinion about one state of christianity based on modern notions without showing how you know that state represents the earliest layers of the religion. How do you expect to be able to say anything meaningful about the underpinnings of the religion you seem to be functionally uninterested in understanding. It all seems to be some sort of theoretical exercise on your part.

I could recommend some readings if you want to learn a little about the contexts of those texts.

mountainman

But dont confuse this with the noble silence of the ascetic or pythagorean who has engaged in a vow of silence. History may disclose many men (and women) who refused to speak to tyrants and many who spat in the tyrants' eyes before they were executed. But history also clearly discloses that Jesus was presented by the authors of the new testament as a partial ascetic.

ApostateAbe

The large part of the evidence backing what I can say about the origins of Christianity are listed in the OP, sourced from the gospel of Mark, among the earliest biographical information about Jesus that we know about. Further support for this model is found in Q and Paul, the two earliest sources, and I can provide specific citations to those passage if you are curious. When the three earliest independent sources relevant to the beginning of the religion each converge on the same model, I take that to be a very strong explanation for what the religion was all about from the very beginning. That is how I would do it. Maybe you would prefer to understand the beginnings of Christianity by reading Oedipus Rex (or via: amazon.co.uk) or something else?
Great, I'm game.

aa5874

You have NO large evidence for HJ NOT even Scholars have any. You have ALREADY stated that it was the supposed "FAILED Prophecy" of the PRESUMED HJ that convinced you that there was an HJ.

That is ALL. You even INVENTED your OWN Gospel and fabricated your OWN evidence.

We REMEMBER what you wrote. You have NO large backing of evidence for HJ.

You cannot show that it was the NOT the author of the Synoptics who FABRICATED the words of Jesus like how you FABRICATED your own events for the "Gospel according to ABE".

ApostateAbe, you KNOW people can FABRICATE their own history of Jesus by using the NT. You have done it. It must be EXPECTED that there were PEOPLE just like you who were NOT pleased with their Jesus story and SIMPLY Fabricated their own Gospel.

There were at least FOUR person like you in the NT Canon that is why we have FIVE versions of Jesus and now your make at least SIX.