FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-20-2009, 01:53 AM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post
I'm currently on the fence with regard to whether Jesus existed or not. That said, I believe Mark was written mostly as symbolic (i.e. fig tree, demons cast into swine, etc.).

For those that believe Mark or Matthew and Luke were written into the second century, how do you address the issue of Jesus predicting the coming of the Son of Man during that particular generation? It seems if they were written in the second century by Christians they would not include this statement by Jesus since it would seem embarrassing to the Church since it didn't come true.

The same might be said with other sayings of Jesus, such as when he told his disciples that the 12 of them would sit on thrones of judgment in the Kingdom of God judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Why would a later Christian author include such a saying if he knew he was going to have Judas, one of the 12, betray Jesus and commit suicide? Would a Christian author include Judas as one of the 12 Jesus said would judge Israel in the new Kingdom?

B. Ehrman uses these examples, I believe, as part of the "criterion of dissimilarity" he uses to support the idea that the sayings of Jesus are authentic.

I'm certain this has been addressed here but I haven't been able to find a specific thread that addresses this specific group of sayings.

Thanks,

Jay
For me, the much simpler answer is that the author of the original Mark knew Josephus.

The author wrote a satire based on this knowledge.


I mean, it is pretty obvious.
dog-on is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 04:53 AM   #32
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post
I'm currently on the fence with regard to whether Jesus existed or not. That said, I believe Mark was written mostly as symbolic (i.e. fig tree, demons cast into swine, etc.).

For those that believe Mark or Matthew and Luke were written into the second century, how do you address the issue of Jesus predicting the coming of the Son of Man during that particular generation? It seems if they were written in the second century by Christians they would not include this statement by Jesus since it would seem embarrassing to the Church since it didn't come true.

The same might be said with other sayings of Jesus, such as when he told his disciples that the 12 of them would sit on thrones of judgment in the Kingdom of God judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Why would a later Christian author include such a saying if he knew he was going to have Judas, one of the 12, betray Jesus and commit suicide? Would a Christian author include Judas as one of the 12 Jesus said would judge Israel in the new Kingdom?

B. Ehrman uses these examples, I believe, as part of the "criterion of dissimilarity" he uses to support the idea that the sayings of Jesus are authentic.

I'm certain this has been addressed here but I haven't been able to find a specific thread that addresses this specific group of sayings.

Thanks,

Jay
For me, the much simpler answer is that the author of the original Mark knew Josephus.

The author wrote a satire based on this knowledge.


I mean, it is pretty obvious.
Can you explain how all of Mark was a satire based on Josephus?
Jayrok is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 04:56 AM   #33
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Jayrok,

Please note that the passage about "this generation" is identical in Mark, Matthew and Luke:

Quote:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
This is quite unusual. It is hard to find another passage where no changes have been made. This suggests to me that all three gospels have been corrected at the same time by the same person.

Note the other references to "this generation" in Mark:


Here is Matthew talking about "this generation":


It is clear that in the original text the lead character did not think much of "this generation." Note also how much the passages are different in the two writers, suggesting that the writers were not interested in simply copying their source material.

Now look at the structure of the passage which is exactly the same in not just Mark and Matthew, but Luke as well:

Let's analyse this a bit to see what it is saying about what will and will not be.

1. What will not not be (pass away) before Apocalypse will be? This generation.
What will be -- The Apocalypse
2. What will not be before my words will not be? The World.
What will not not be -- my words.

The use of the double negative terms are confusing, instead of "being," the phrase uses the idea of not "not being" (Will not pass away)

Thus we get this:
A. will not "not be" - This Generation
B. will be - The Apocalypse
C. will not be - The world
D. will not "not be" - my words.

The not "not be" is a clever twist or a clever way of saying "to be". It obscures the fact that we are getting a broken analogy. The analogy should be "A" is to "B" as "C" is to "D". The relationship of A (this generation) to B (the Apocalypse) should be the same as C (the world) to D (my words).

Notice that we have three things that will be - this generation, the apocalypse, and my words, and one thing that will not be - the world.

We are getting a strange disanalogy that A to D is not B to C.

Before the trick of putting in the double negative confused the passage, we may assume that there was an analogy of A to B as C to D. The passage originally must have read something like this:



We now have a simple A to B = C to D structure. What will pass away: A (This generation) and C (The world). What will not pass away: B: (The Apocalypse) and D: (My Words). Rather then the senseless and confusing disanalogy that we have in the synoptics, we now have found the original clear analogy that was in the original text.

I am not sure why the editor of the synoptic gospels made this change to the passage in the synoptics. Anybody care to speculate?


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Not sure what to make of your comments.
Jayrok is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 05:38 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

For me, the much simpler answer is that the author of the original Mark knew Josephus.

The author wrote a satire based on this knowledge.


I mean, it is pretty obvious.
Can you explain how all of Mark was a satire based on Josephus?
A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.
dog-on is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 07:28 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post

Can you explain how all of Mark was a satire based on Josephus?
A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.
Were the gospels written to refute negative public opinion about Christianity? If the average empire-dweller believed that Christians drank blood and set themselves apart as "enemies of mankind" did Mark or the others perceive a need to polish the Christian image?
bacht is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 08:14 AM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default What Shall and Shall Not Pass Away

Hi Jayrok,

Let me add to and clarify my point.

The speaker regards this generation as an evil generation. The apocalypse is the coming of God, which is a good thing. Why should the speaker be saying that this evil generation will live to experience a good thing. The evil generation of Moses died before entering the land of milk and honey. Should not the speaker be making an analogy to that evil generation? In other words, he should be saying that this evil generation will pass away before the apocalypse (coming of God) in the same way that the evil generation of Moses passed away before entering the land of Canaan.

As the passage stands now, we are getting a disanalogy to that event and it makes no sense.

When I analyzed the meaning of the passage, I also found that there was a disanalogy between the first sentence where this generation does not disappear and the second sentence in which this heaven and earth does disappear. Again the proper analogy should be with this generation disappearing to heaven and earth disappearing.

When we see a disanalogy, we often assume that it is related to an earlier analogy. For example, if we see the disanalogy, "A day without orange juice is not like a day without sunshine," we assume that it is related to the earlier analogy, "A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine."

In this case, it is fair to infer that originally the passage talked about "This generation shall pass away" (analogous to the passing away of the Moses generation in the Hebrew Scriptures and analogous to the "Heaven and Earth shall pass away" in the second half of the passage.

Once we infer this, we have to ask how and why it was changed. Since it is identical in all three synoptic gospels, it is likely that the phase was changed in all three at the same time. It is the "why," the reason for the change that puzzles me. Perhaps the editor wanted to emphasize that the apocalypse would be happening soon - in this generation's lifetime - and so made the change to emphasize the fact that the apocalypse would be coming soon in the lifetime of the reader/listener.

If we are basing the dating of Mark on this one passage and there is good reason to believe that the passage has been changed, then we can no longer base the dating of Mark on this passage.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Jayrok,

Please note that the passage about "this generation" is identical in Mark, Matthew and Luke:



This is quite unusual. It is hard to find another passage where no changes have been made. This suggests to me that all three gospels have been corrected at the same time by the same person.

Note the other references to "this generation" in Mark:


Here is Matthew talking about "this generation":


It is clear that in the original text the lead character did not think much of "this generation." Note also how much the passages are different in the two writers, suggesting that the writers were not interested in simply copying their source material.

Now look at the structure of the passage which is exactly the same in not just Mark and Matthew, but Luke as well:

Let's analyse this a bit to see what it is saying about what will and will not be.

1. What will not not be (pass away) before Apocalypse will be? This generation.
What will be -- The Apocalypse
2. What will not be before my words will not be? The World.
What will not not be -- my words.

The use of the double negative terms are confusing, instead of "being," the phrase uses the idea of not "not being" (Will not pass away)

Thus we get this:
A. will not "not be" - This Generation
B. will be - The Apocalypse
C. will not be - The world
D. will not "not be" - my words.

The not "not be" is a clever twist or a clever way of saying "to be". It obscures the fact that we are getting a broken analogy. The analogy should be "A" is to "B" as "C" is to "D". The relationship of A (this generation) to B (the Apocalypse) should be the same as C (the world) to D (my words).

Notice that we have three things that will be - this generation, the apocalypse, and my words, and one thing that will not be - the world.

We are getting a strange disanalogy that A to D is not B to C.

Before the trick of putting in the double negative confused the passage, we may assume that there was an analogy of A to B as C to D. The passage originally must have read something like this:



We now have a simple A to B = C to D structure. What will pass away: A (This generation) and C (The world). What will not pass away: B: (The Apocalypse) and D: (My Words). Rather then the senseless and confusing disanalogy that we have in the synoptics, we now have found the original clear analogy that was in the original text.

I am not sure why the editor of the synoptic gospels made this change to the passage in the synoptics. Anybody care to speculate?


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Not sure what to make of your comments.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 08:25 AM   #37
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post

Can you explain how all of Mark was a satire based on Josephus?
A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.
This also my view.

It would appear that the author of gMark was not a Jew and was not aware of Jewish tradition. The author may have gotten the fundamental story line for his Jesus story from Josephus and the LXX if gMark was written first.

The inclusion of the John the Baptist story in all the Gospels and the even more peculiar mention of the head of John the Baptist being asked to be placed on a platter is paralell to a similar incident immediately preceeding the JtB story in Josephus where Tiberius asked for the head of Aretas to be sent to him.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1-2
Quote:
.....So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man...
Josephus did not write about the method of execution of JtB, yet the authors of the Gospels wrote that a request was made for the head of JtB to be sent to the daughter of Herodias.


It is also noted that the author of gMark did not know the Jewish tradition for burial. This author wrote that the spices were to be applied about three days after the burial by the women.

The author of gJohn corrected the author of Mark.

This is the author of John 19.38-41
Quote:
.....He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. 39 And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. 40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
The authors of the Gospels appear to be after the writings of Josephus.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 08:27 AM   #38
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi Jayrok,

Let me add to and clarify my point.

The speaker regards this generation as an evil generation. The apocalypse is the coming of God, which is a good thing. Why should the speaker be saying that this evil generation will live to experience a good thing. The evil generation of Moses died before entering the land of milk and honey. Should not the speaker be making an analogy to that evil generation? In other words, he should be saying that this evil generation will pass away before the apocalypse (coming of God) in the same way that the evil generation of Moses passed away before entering the land of Canaan.

As the passage stands now, we are getting a disanalogy to that event and it makes no sense.

When I analyzed the meaning of the passage, I also found that there was a disanalogy between the first sentence where this generation does not disappear and the second sentence in which this heaven and earth does disappear. Again the proper analogy should be with this generation disappearing to heaven and earth disappearing.

When we see a disanalogy, we often assume that it is related to an earlier analogy. For example, if we see the disanalogy, "A day without orange juice is not like a day without sunshine," we assume that it is related to the earlier analogy, "A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine."

In this case, it is fair to infer that originally the passage talked about "This generation shall pass away" (analogous to the passing away of the Moses generation in the Hebrew Scriptures and analogous to the "Heaven and Earth shall pass away" in the second half of the passage.

Once we infer this, we have to ask how and why it was changed. Since it is identical in all three synoptic gospels, it is likely that the phase was changed in all three at the same time. It is the "why," the reason for the change that puzzles me. Perhaps the editor wanted to emphasize that the apocalypse would be happening soon - in this generation's lifetime - and so made the change to emphasize the fact that the apocalypse would be coming soon in the lifetime of the reader/listener.

If we are basing the dating of Mark on this one passage and there is good reason to believe that the passage has been changed, then we can no longer base the dating of Mark on this passage.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay
Interesting, thanks.
Jayrok is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 08:38 AM   #39
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post

Can you explain how all of Mark was a satire based on Josephus?
A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.
I think it's possible Mark got the idea of Jesus making a ruckus by crying woes to Jerusalem in the city, warning of the kingdom of God coming, being arrested and flogged, all the while remaining silent is based on Jesus bar Ananus from Josephus.

But I think Mark had knowledge of and used the Hebrew Scriptures as well.
Jayrok is offline  
Old 03-20-2009, 09:18 AM   #40
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

And don't forget Philo:
Flaccus, VI. (36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas, afflicted not with a wild, savage, and dangerous madness (for that comes on in fits without being expected either by the patient or by bystanders), but with an intermittent and more gentle kind; this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths; (37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
Mark 15:7-20 7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he was wont to do for them. 9 And he answered them, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" 10 For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, "Then what shall I do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?" 13 And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 14 And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 16 And the soldiers led him away inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion. 17 And they clothed him in a purple cloak, and plaiting a crown of thorns they put it on him. 18 And they began to salute him, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 19 And they struck his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and they knelt down in homage to him. 20 And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak, and put his own clothes on him. And they led him out to crucify him.

Mark 15:29 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mark 15:31 So also the chief priests mocked him to one another with the scribes

Luke 8:27 27 And as he stepped out on land, there met him a man from the city who had demons; for a long time he had worn no clothes, and he lived not in a house but among the tombs.

Luke 23:7-9 7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. 9 So he questioned him at some length;
DCH (Lunchtime!!)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayrok View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

A satire based on the information gleaned from reading Josephus.

This does, in no way, mean that the author was not knowledgeable of other works, such as the LXX.

A fairly comprehensive basis for a Jesus story can actually be derived from certain occurrences described in the works of Josephus.

The incident of the Apocalyptic Preacher in the Jewish temple, being but one easily identifiable example.
I think it's possible Mark got the idea of Jesus making a ruckus by crying woes to Jerusalem in the city, warning of the kingdom of God coming, being arrested and flogged, all the while remaining silent is based on Jesus bar Ananus from Josephus.

But I think Mark had knowledge of and used the Hebrew Scriptures as well.
DCHindley is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:53 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.