tanya

At risk of introducing yet another bizarre submission to this topic, as we approach nearly a thousand replies to the question posed by the author of this thread, I would like to re-submit this simple verse from Mark, copied from JW's thread inquiring about the quantity or quality of evidence needed to conclude that Mark is fiction:

Mark 1:1 Byzantine Majority text
αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου υιου του θεου

and:

Mark 1:1 Greek Study Bible
Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησου Χριστοῦ.

If the two extant versions of the same text have such different accounts, how can we call it "history"?

Evidently, many centuries ago, someone else had the same idea as J-D:
"son of God", υιου του θεου, is a non-trivial addition to the text, (or subtraction from it, depending on your point of view.)

This comment went largely unnoticed on JW's thread, perhaps deservedly so. At the very least, I hope it will not, here, claim the epithet "bizarre".

Assumption 1: "HJ" = "historical Jesus" = hypothesis that there was once a real human being named Jesus of Nazareth.

Assumption 2: "HJ" has been defined by the Gospels, including Mark.

Assumption 3: "more likely overall explanation" = the explanation with the greatest harmony between the text of Mark, and the reality which we perceive in our daily life, about 18 centuries after this gospel was first composed. Our problem, addressing the OP, is this little word, "the", isn't it? We don't have "the" text of Mark. We have several, different, contradictory versions. Which one is the original? Which one is faithful to the original author's intentions? I claim we do not know the answers to those questions, and I claim, accordingly, that we don't possess "the" text of Mark.

My own personal bias is to reject the OP, and conclude that, on the contrary, the most reasonable, i.e. "more likely", explanation, is that the story of Jesus of Nazareth, as presented in Mark, is a work of fiction, about a fictional, (not an historical) character, imbued with mythical traits and qualities.

I submit this quote from Mark 1:1 as evidence thereof.

Unlike archibald, I don't find the comments of either GuruGeorge, or J-D to be bizarre. I do find this rather verbose comment from J-D, to be relatively long on verbiage, and short on substance. I claim that one quote from one gospel, illustrating a statement "using the name Jesus", which "cannot be accurate", would be more effective than writing tautologous this and aver that. Then, if archibald would reply not with words, but with a quote of his own, also drawn from the gospels, which demonstrated the contrary, i.e. the veracity of the hypothesis of "HJ", then, after 1000 more posts, we may hope to have attained nirvana.

aa5874

Your statement does NOT help the likelihood of HJ.

As soon as you ADMIT that the Canonical Gospels contain reports that CANNOT be accurate then the Gospels CANNOT be RELIABLE.

As soon as you ADMIT that the Canonical Gospels contain reports that CANNOT be accurate then the Gospels are sources of FICTION.

1. The birth of Jesus CANNOT be an accurate report where Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

2. The Baptism EVENT CANNOT be an accurate report with the Holy Ghost Bird and the Voice from heaven..

3. The Temptation Event CANNOT be an accurate report where Jesus and Satan were together on the pinnacle of the Temple.

4. The Miracles of Jesus CANNOT be accurate reports where he cured INCURABLE diseases with the "spit and touch" technique.

5. The feeding of the 4000 and 5000 people CANNOT be an accurate report.

6. The Killing of a FIG tree by a curse CANNOT be an accurate report.

7. The raising of the dead CANNOT be an accurate report.

8. The Walking on the Sea by Jesus CANNOT be an accurate report.

9. The Transfiguration of Jesus CANNOT be an accurate report.

10. The Resurrection on the THIRD day CANNOT be an accurate report.

11. The post-resurrection of Jesus CANNOT be an accurate report.

12. The Ascension of Jesus CANNOT be an accurate report.

Virtually every report about Jesus in the Gospels CANNOT be accurate.

The Gospels are sources of inaccuracy, fiction and IMPLAUSIBILITIES from BIRTH to Ascension.

The Gospels do NOT help the likelihood of HJ they TEND to destroy him.

The Gospel Jesus was described as a PHANTOM.

The Gospel Jesus ONLY appeared to have a human body.

Toto

Chili split

Huge black hole split

arnoldo

The above quote, when taken into context, may indicate a challenge by Julian to produce a well known author to mention a reference to Cornelius and Sergius. Additionally, Julian mentions that Jesus was known by name for more than three hundred years, thus supporting the historicity of Jesus. The "fabrication" that Julian mentions seems to be in reference to the resurrection of Jesus rather than his historicity.

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous. Cornelius and Sergius are not from the time of TIBERIUS. Not even Acts of the Apostle claimed that Cornelius and Sergius were from the time of TIBERIUS.,

Tiberius was already dead before Cornelius and Sergius were mentioned in Acts of the Apostles 10 &13.

The events surrounding Jesus and Paul supposedly happened in the reign of TIBERIUS and Claudius

"Against the Galileans"
Well, how long were these Myth Gods known by name that Julian mentioned?

"Against the Galileans The mention of the name Jesus does NOT make the character a figure of history. It may only signify what was BELIEVED. Certainly people of antiquity BELIEVED the Myth fables about their Myth Gods, Jesus included.

Again, you promote propaganda. Not even the word resurrection is found in "Against the Galileans".

Julian is clearly arguing that it is UTTERLY FALSE that Jesus was God and that the fabrication of the Galileans, Jesus and the disciples, was a MONSTROUS tale of fiction composed by wickedness.

Julian had ZERO credible historical sources for the Galileans and asked his audience to present sources for Jesus and Paul.

Up to today, NOBODY can show a well-known single writer who wrote about Jesus and Paul. These events happen in the reign of TIBERIUS or Claudius.

J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'likelihood of HJ' and 'reliable'.

J-D

If two textually different versions of the same document exist, I can see how that raises additional questions, but I don't see how it is grounds for arriving at a different general evaluation of the document. I know that a text which describes a son of God cannot be literally accurate, and it makes no difference one way or the other whether there's a parallel version which omits the 'son of God' reference.

aa5874

Your claim is contradictory.

If two texts are different but is claimed to have been derived from some other text then questions MUST be raised about the evaluation of the original text.

It cannot be expected that a single document will contain ALL details of any character or that all documents about any character would be IDENTICAL.

Virtually all the additional details of Jesus NOT found in gMark described Jesus as a PHANTOM or ACTING as Phantom which is Compatible to gMark.

In gMark, Jesus was a PHANTOM.

arnoldo

Considering that Tiberius was the Roman Emperor from 14 AD to 37 AD, that time frame may not fit chronologically with account of Cornelius depicted in Acts so I will concede to your point. Additionally, there is apparent archaeological evidence dating Sergius to AD 47 which is clearly outside the time frame of the emperor Tiberius.


With reference to Emperor Julian's challenge for a contemporary reference to Paul or Jesus it looks like the closest one is from the Roman Historian Tacitus.

Toto

Very interesting - if Julian did not know this passage in Tacitus, this would confirm the suspicion that Tacitus in fact wrote nothing about Jesus, and this is a later interpolation.