Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Danon72 · 12-13-2005, 02:53 PM

By far the earliest Christian tradition is a good old stoning. Christians practically invented the sport.

Chris Weimer · 12-13-2005, 03:04 PM

Joe, I'm absolutely perplexed on the meaning of your first couple of paragraphs, however...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Say there was a historical Jesus who dies around 30 CE. After two generations (Judge - look out!) there would be relatively few who would have known the historical Jesus or even someone who knew the historical Jesus. At this time one could write about an Impossible Jesus which would be easier to believe because of the lack of available contradictory witnesses. And this is exactly what we see, "Mark" is written about two generations later.

But Mark was the first to claim that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, no? So the only thing we use to place a date for Jesus is Mark, which we already determined was the unreliable writer of a certain fiction. This is certainly circular reasoning: Mark places Jesus at 30's CE, and since Jesus is at 30's CE, Mark was written shortly afterwards?

Quote:

1) The first Gospel, "Mark", has no Genealogy, indicating no significant genealogy tradition at that time.

Whose genealogy tradition? Christians? That of Jesus? There's no telling where the genealogy came from, but it certainly doesn't have to originally be Jesus', and the argument then fails. What if Matthew and Luke appropriated Messianic genealogies?

Quote:

2) "Matthew" and "Luke" select Different Genealogies indicating there was no one authoritative genealogy available to them.

...

6) The convergence of Shealtiel/Zerubbabel likely has a Jewish Bible source - rebuilding the second Temple.

But if Luke were to have read the Jewish Bible, he would have known that what he did was impossible - Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were in Solomon's line, not Nathan's. This at least gives the impression that they both used some type of an earlier genealogy.

Quote:

3) Presumably "Matthew" and "Luke" would have considered the Jewish Bible the most authoritative source for Genealogies and this by itself makes Original genealogies the default position.

Obviously Luke missed this one.

Quote:

4) The Style of the Genealogies fits the theology of each. ""Matthew" emphasizes Kings and seed of Abraham while "Luke" emphasizes the connection to all men, going back to Adam.

Irrelevant. If Matthew wanted to, he could have gone back to Adam as well. From Adam to Solomon to Zerubbabel the line is fully documented. Besides, there's nothing stopping Matthew from removing the earliest before Abraham. That doesn't invalidate a pre-existant genealogy.

Quote:

5) The Divergence of Solomon/Nathan likely has a Jewish Bible source - uncertainty regarding Solomon's line.

Don't you mean uncertainty regarding Nathan's line? Solomon's line is documented, not Nathan's.

Quote:

7) The idea that "Matthew" unintentionally falsely claimed groups of 14 generations by selecting an existing genealogy is also a Christian Apology to preserve "Matthew's" witness integrity.

Strawman. No one's arguing that Matthew didn't edit the genealogy.

Quote:

"Luke's" list appears contrived as well to get to 77 names. A pretty big list to have disappeared if it already existed.

Larger works have disappeared completey.

Quote:

8) It's generally thought that Christianity started with a belief that Jesus was resurrected. Subsequent Christianity gradually reflected on the Origins of Jesus and worked Backwards. We can see this in the Gospels. "Mark" has no infancy. Original "Matthew" has a genealogy and is Edited to add a virgin birth. "Luke" extends the genealogy back to Adam. "John" goes Back To The Future to place Jesus at the Beginning. Therefore, Genealogies are a relatively later Christian development compared to resurrection belief.

Messianic lineage predates resurrection tradition by decades if not centuries.

Quote:

9) Even if "Matthew" and "Luke" took in whole or in part existing Genealogies they still had choices to make as far as what to take and Edit. Is there much Practical difference then between a completely Original composition or one not entirely original but made by their choices?

Yes, there's a huge difference. The latter would show signs of an early belief, in this case the Temple re-establishment.

Quote:

Christ, you have the Logic there that putting Zerubbabel in the genealogy is support for an earlier wholly Jewish outlook. But as I mention above puting Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the genealogy makes sense too for not wholly Jewish Gospellers as the names are in the Jewish Bible chronology, are important names and are specifically associated with rebuilding the Temple out of Exile ( a theme you like with "Matthew"). "Matthew" and "Luke" are entirely One-Way Proof-texting. They'll use anything to support a theological point and if it also works against them they don't care (just like Christians supposedly feel about Life insurance). It's weak Chris, weak.

But Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are in Solomon's line, not Nathan's. Where else would Luke be gathering this information from if not from something that allows it? Besides, both of their use of the names, as even you indicated, mean something about the Temple. The names have importance attached to them, and Luke's use of them where inappropriate shows this.

Chris Weimer · 12-13-2005, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I agree, the virgin birth does seem like a product of its time rather than a tradition. Of course, that still makes it a tradition albeit a short one. It would still have to predate the gospels, however.

Would it necessarily predate Mark? If it does, surely not by much, thus I wouldn't give the support of it as one of the earliest traditions.

Quote:

The messianic connection does seem rather feeble as Jesus fails to fulfill most of the criteria. I suspect that the initial 'christians' were probably sufficiently Jewish that they felt the need to apply that appellation onto him, unwarranted as it obviously is. That could be one of several likely reasons for the whole Jewish/Christian debacle in Jerusalem, also a pre-gospel event but not relating directly to Jesus.

Yes, I agree that the earliest Christians were still Jewish. Perhaps the failure of the Messianic prophecies and the emergence of the Hellenic church prompted them to redefine Messiah as Godson/Son of Adam?

Chris

Chris Weimer · 12-13-2005, 10:02 PM

Can I focus for a minute on apocalypticism? We have Mark 13, I Thes. 4.13-18, II Peter 3.3-13, Thomas 11 (111) and maybe 86, and the Son of Man passages in the Synoptics, Matthew 23.24, and maybe the Didache (but it may be too dependent to be an independent witness) - what other passages do we have that relate to the immediate end?

Julian · 12-14-2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

But Mark was the first to claim that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate, no? So the only thing we use to place a date for Jesus is Mark, which we already determined was the unreliable writer of a certain fiction. This is certainly circular reasoning: Mark places Jesus at 30's CE, and since Jesus is at 30's CE, Mark was written shortly afterwards?

You will have to seriously consider the Gospel of Peter as a contender for the first mention of Pilate. It is probably fairly contemporary with Mark, could be even earlier or, at least, its source is. Either way it points strongly to a pre-gospel passion writing that involves Pilate at an early stage. This could also mean that the Jews became the antagonists within a surprisingly few years of the beginning.

Julian

Julian · 12-14-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Can I focus for a minute on apocalypticism? We have Mark 13, I Thes. 4.13-18, II Peter 3.3-13, Thomas 11 (111) and maybe 86, and the Son of Man passages in the Synoptics, Matthew 23.24, and maybe the Didache (but it may be too dependent to be an independent witness) - what other passages do we have that relate to the immediate end?

If you are a Q adherent, and I seem to recall that you are, you will need to incorporate several sayings from this source into your list. I don't have my books handy, being at work, so I cannot give you the exact numbers.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 12-14-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Can I focus for a minute on apocalypticism? We have Mark 13, I Thes. 4.13-18, II Peter 3.3-13, Thomas 11 (111) and maybe 86, and the Son of Man passages in the Synoptics, Matthew 23.24, and maybe the Didache (but it may be too dependent to be an independent witness) - what other passages do we have that relate to the immediate end?

There is John 21.22-23. And Revelation. Perhaps Hebrews 9.26-28 (see also 11.39-40). Any mention of living in the last times, as in Jude 18, would seem to imply a swift end.

Ben.

Chris Weimer · 12-14-2005, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

You will have to seriously consider the Gospel of Peter as a contender for the first mention of Pilate. It is probably fairly contemporary with Mark, could be even earlier or, at least, its source is. Either way it points strongly to a pre-gospel passion writing that involves Pilate at an early stage. This could also mean that the Jews became the antagonists within a surprisingly few years of the beginning.

Julian

Well, there's two problems with the gospel of Peter. The first often overlooked one is that we don't have any early manuscripts of the gospel to compare with our very late (9th-10th century, I believe). Second is that we don't have an early terminus a quo. I'm not yet impressed with the arguments for independence, but I'm still looking at it, scanning it carefully for the slightest clue to give it away... If so, then yes, we could probably add that to it...

Julian · 12-14-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Well, there's two problems with the gospel of Peter. The first often overlooked one is that we don't have any early manuscripts of the gospel to compare with our very late (9th-10th century, I believe). Second is that we don't have an early terminus a quo. I'm not yet impressed with the arguments for independence, but I'm still looking at it, scanning it carefully for the slightest clue to give it away... If so, then yes, we could probably add that to it...

I don't think that an early exemplar is particularly important here (although it would nice) since it is obviously an early gospel.

I just read about this the other and will go back and check my source although he (Koester) doesn't seem to get into too many details. Ehrman might have more on this. I will check.

I did note that Kirby's site places it quite early. It might include some reasoning as to why.

Julian

Chris Weimer · 12-14-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

If you are a Q adherent, and I seem to recall that you are, you will need to incorporate several sayings from this source into your list. I don't have my books handy, being at work, so I cannot give you the exact numbers.

Julian

The Q-theory, though I still give it credence, is still unproven and unsure of itself. I don't want to hang any theories on it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-13-2005, 02:53 PM	#11
Danon72 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading, Pennsylvania Posts: 48	By far the earliest Christian tradition is a good old stoning. Christians practically invented the sport.

12-13-2005, 10:02 PM	#14
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Can I focus for a minute on apocalypticism? We have Mark 13, I Thes. 4.13-18, II Peter 3.3-13, Thomas 11 (111) and maybe 86, and the Son of Man passages in the Synoptics, Matthew 23.24, and maybe the Didache (but it may be too dependent to be an independent witness) - what other passages do we have that relate to the immediate end?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.