Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 06-28-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

That idea is such a pathetic attempt to justify the lack of credentials that it would be best to ignore it. The idea that Christians would lose an important part of their sacred history - it's just too convenient. </church lady>

Perhaps so. Seemed there was a good reason it would have been there and a good reason it was not preserved--as it was separate. Been too long since I read it... Maybe someone else knows about this practice of the time..agree though that missing evidence is not too helpful

Quote:

CCS Lewis decided that the gospels must be true because they were obviously the product of illiterate fishermen who didn't even speak proper Greek. But this ignores everything that is now known about their literary structure, their use of Koine Greek, etc.

If you are going to seriously argue that Mark is not intelligent enough, so his tale must be true, you are going to have to do a lot more explaining. How do you deal with the gospel being written so late, after the events it describes, in a language the the people involved did not speak? How is this compatible with historical truth?

sorry..I don't see the incompatibility.

Quote:

I suspect the references to the lineage were interpolated into the epistles.

Ah..Do all of those references have good evidence for interpolation?

TedM · 06-28-2010, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

You have misread me. No disrespect on my part.

How?

I was not saying Christians believe in a minimal Jesus. Rather, they believe now what they believed 1800 years ago. I'm not sure how you read it differently.

bacht · 06-28-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay, from your OP:

"Might not a reasonable explanation be that Mark was passing along traditions which included mythological development regarding an actual historical Jesus about whom not much was really known?"

I want to talk about Mark.

Right, well we start with "The Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God", so the listener or reader is being prepared for someone special, perhaps unique

After baptism there's some kind of heavenly voice - divine approval maybe

Jesus is shown eating and drinking, walking and talking - seems normal

We get stories about healings, miracles and exorcisms - impressive supernaturalism

A couple of witnesses see Jesus in divine glory - this has to be a key scene

Jesus apparently suffers and dies on a cross - this seems human

Then there's this empty tomb business, kind of a question mark there

..

You're saying some of this was historical? I believe the Transfiguration could've really happened, but not in normal spacetime

Toto · 06-28-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

Quote:

I suspect the references to the lineage were interpolated into the epistles.

Ah..Do all of those references have good evidence for interpolation?

It depends on where you place the burden of proof, and how much evidence you need.

show_no_mercy · 06-28-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

While written in what is called "bad Greek," Mark is an intelligent literary construction. But it is not credible history, and the only people who read it as history are trying to find a historical Jesus, for whatever purpose.

Yet to me he doesn't adequately address things one might reasonably expect if it were just intelligent fiction. That makes me think there is a bit more history and a bit less intelligence involved..anyway, that's what the OP is based on..

So you think that Mark 5:1-10 is historical? That you have a demon that just so happens to be named after Roman military units and Jesus drives out the Roman military unit named demon from the area? Not only that, but these pigs run 30 miles away to the sea? What were Jesus and the unnamed man who was just possessed doing while they waited for the pigs to run 30 miles?

That seems more like a quite intelligent political commentary on the events around 70 CE. Especially since some Roman military units that attacked Judea had a pig as its standard.

How about Mark 15:1-15? That Jesus, the son of "Abba" the father (as Mark established at 14:32-41) just so happens to get exchanged by Pilate with another Jesus called "BarAbba[s]" -- which is Aramaic for "son of the father" -- who is the prototypical 1st century wannabe messiah/insurrectionist, who rightly deserves crucifixion? Remember, crucifixion was the usual punishment for insurrectionists.

That also seems like a pretty clever literary/linguistic sleight of hand that the vast majority of Christians still aren't aware of.

Do you think "Peter" - which is Greek for rock - just so happens to do exactly what Jesus predicts that he does in the Parable of the Sower at Mark 4:1-8? When the word gets sown on rocks (i.e. peter) is like someone who receives Jesus' discipleship with fervor and then runs away at the first sign of trouble? That's exactly what Rock does at his last scene in this gospel (Mark 15:66-72).

Sounds more like Shakespeare-esque foreshadowing, not history.

Do you really think that Jesus predicted the destruction of the 2nd Temple at Mark 13? Do you really think that Jesus predicted that he would be killed by the Jews (and not the Romans) at Mark 12:1-9? And that he just so happened to have someone betray him whose name was "Jew"?

Do you think that Jesus was so popular that everywhere he went crowds gathered around him which was the main reason -- according to Mark -- that the Jews wanted him executed, yet he was completely unknown in the historical record?

Of course, there are other anachronistic things in Mark, like having a tomb hewn out of circular rock prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple, people calling Jesus a "rabbi" (a staple of Rabbinic Judaism, not 2nd temple Judaism), Jesus having run-ins with Pharisees in synagoges in Galilee (Pharisees in synagoges in the Diaspora is a result of the decentralization of Judaism due to the 2nd temple's destruction), saying that "all the Jews" [Mk 7:3] wash their hands prior to a meal (also a marker of the emerging post 2nd temple Rabbinic Judaism).

TedM · 06-28-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

You're saying some of this was historical?

I'm saying some of it could well have been and I provided 11 items to discuss in the OP. If you'd like to address those we'll have something to talk about. Otherwise I think we'll just be sailing frisbees over each others' heads.

TedM · 06-28-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...

Ah..Do all of those references have good evidence for interpolation?

It depends on where you place the burden of proof, and how much evidence you need.

Of course. I was wonder whether YOU think it is good evidence upon which you base your suspicions..maybe I should have asked what the general consensus of scholars on the subject think also.

aa5874 · 06-28-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, Mark's Jesus was both God and man. You cannot LIMIT the scope of gMark by IGNORING the Divine characteristics.

gMark is what it is and says what it says. I understand that. What I am trying to do is examine whether it contains clues to a REAL truth that would be in contradiction to it's own portrayal of Jesus. Isn't this what all historians look for? Don't they believe that all history is colored by the biases of the culture/authors and that the TRUTH sometimes can be gleened nevertheless?

But, why look in gMark for an unbiased Jesus? GMark says what it says, it is virtually cast in stone.

The KJV Mark claimed Jesus walked on water, was transfigured and was RAISED from the dead so you simply cannot ignore the evidence that show Jesus was non-historical just to LIMIT the scope of your investigation.

And when one investigates the historicity of any entity it must be that ALL DATA of the entity be taken into consideration unless you are BIASED.

Quote:

And further, your notion that Jesus believers or the author of gMark KNEW Jesus was just a man who lived in Galilee for about thirty years, crucified for blasphemy and STILL worshiped him as a God contrary

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted M

Let me be clear: I'm saying that the folks may have been similar to modern-day Christians who believed Jesus had been a human with God's power within him. But, that the reality was that he was a human about whom little was known and much was developed as myth--probably not intentionally, but in order to make him compatible with the Messiah expected from their own interpretation of the OT scriptures.

But, I understand your myopic position but you cannot use gMark to show that Jesus was just human and was NOT well-known.

This is the author of gMark. Thousands of people followed Jesus all over Galilee.

Mr 1:28 -

Quote:

And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Mr 6:44 -

Quote:

And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

Mr 8:9 -

Quote:

And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away.

The gospel of Mark does NOT support a little-known insignificant human Jesus.

The Gospel of Mark supports a well-known God/man even in the Spirit world.

And the notion that early Jesus believers and disciples worshiped a man as a God is hopelessly and theologically absurd.

TedM · 06-28-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Yet to me he doesn't adequately address things one might reasonably expect if it were just intelligent fiction. That makes me think there is a bit more history and a bit less intelligence involved..anyway, that's what the OP is based on..

So you think that Mark 5:1-10 is historical? That you have a demon that just so happens to be named after Roman military units and Jesus drives out the Roman military unit named demon from the area? Not only that, but these pigs run 30 miles away to the sea? What were Jesus and the unnamed man who was just possessed doing while they waited for the pigs to run 30 miles?

That seems more like a quite intelligent political commentary on the events around 70 CE. Especially since some Roman military units that attacked Judea had a pig as its standard.

How about Mark 15:1-15? That Jesus, the son of "Abba" the father (as Mark established at 14:32-41) just so happens to get exchanged by Pilate with another Jesus called "BarAbba[s]" -- which is Aramaic for "son of the father" -- who is the prototypical 1st century wannabe messiah/insurrectionist, who rightly deserves crucifixion? Remember, crucifixion was the usual punishment for insurrectionists.

That also seems like a pretty clever literary/linguistic sleight of hand that the vast majority of Christians still aren't aware of.

Do you think "Peter" - which is Greek for rock - just so happens to do exactly what Jesus predicts that he does in the Parable of the Sower at Mark 4:1-8? When the word gets sown on rocks (i.e. peter) is like someone who receives Jesus' discipleship with fervor and then runs away at the first sign of trouble? That's exactly what Rock does at his last scene in this gospel (Mark 15:66-72).

Sounds more like Shakespeare-esque foreshadowing, not history.

Do you really think that Jesus predicted the destruction of the 2nd Temple at Mark 13? Do you really think that Jesus predicted that he would be killed by the Jews (and not the Romans) at Mark 12:1-9? And that he just so happened to have someone betray him whose name was "Jew"?

Do you think that Jesus was so popular that everywhere he went crowds gathered around him which was the main reason -- according to Mark -- that the Jews wanted him executed, yet he was completely unknown in the historical record?

Of course, there are other anachronistic things in Mark, like having a tomb hewn out of circular rock prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple, people calling Jesus a "rabbi" (a staple of Rabbinic Judaism, not 2nd temple Judaism), Jesus having run-ins with Pharisees in synagoges in Galilee (Pharisees in synagoges in the Diaspora is a result of the decentralization of Judaism due to the 2nd temple's destruction), saying that "all the Jews" [Mk 7:3] wash their hands prior to a meal (also a marker of the emerging post 2nd temple Rabbinic Judaism).

Some of those things may well have developed from Mark's mind or he adapted a clever tradition that someone developed. Rather than get sidetracked by possible creative interpretations of Mark--with one exception below, I'd rather stick to the OP. But thanks for the input.

The exception: I'm curious about the Barrabbas theory. Why do you call him another Jesus? While "son of the father" is mildly interesting, why do you place so much importance on it? tia

Toto · 06-28-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It depends on where you place the burden of proof, and how much evidence you need.

Of course. I was wonder whether YOU think it is good evidence upon which you base your suspicions..maybe I should have asked what the general consensus of scholars on the subject think also.

This is getting away from your OP. There are long threads in this forum on interpolations in the Pauline letters, which I don't intend to repeat.

I guess I find your reasons in the OP too contrived to spend more time on. You seem to rely on your personal incredulilty about why Mark didn't do a better job of inventing a historial Jesus - without knowing Mark's motives. :huh:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.