Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 03-08-2005, 09:05 PM

Quote:

It actually sounds like the kind of thing that could get passed around in Roman cities as an interesting factoid but lose any distinction as to who does it ("Did you know the Jews wash everything before they eat? their hands, the cups, the plates, even the couches...") But that's just rank speculation on my part, of course.

LOL. That strikes me as very perceptive.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle · 03-09-2005, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Mark doesn't know ritual purity laws.

Mark says this in 7:3-4:

3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.

These laws only applied to priests, not to Pharisees and not to "all the Jews."

"all the Jews" is indeed problematic but modern Jewish scholars such as Neusner claim that an important part of Pharisaic distinctiveness was the claim that the ritual purity laws concerning priestly meals should be observed by all truly pious Jewish lay people. If this is right then Mark 7:3-4 would be correct at least about the Pharisees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The trial before the Sanhedrin

Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin contains a number of procedural and legal errors. each of the following details would have been in direct contradiction to Jewish law.

Mark's trial is at night. The Sanhedrin was forbidden to hold trials at night.
Mark's trial happens at the home of the high priest. The Sanhedrin was permitted to hold trials only in the Gazith Hall at the Temple.
Mark's trial is held on Passover. This is perhaps the greatest implausibility of the story. Jewish law absolutely forbid any such activity on high holy days or on the sabbath.
Jesus is given a death sentence immediately. Jewish law required that a death sentence could not be pronounced until 24 hours after the trial.
Mark has Jesus being convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be the Messiah:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?�?

62“I am,�? said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.�?

63The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?�? he asked. 64“You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?�?

They all condemned him as worthy of death
(Mk 14:61-64)

Claiming to be the Messiah was in no way blasphemous nor any violation of Jewish law. The Jewish Messiah was (and is) not God. There is no way that a person claiming to be the Messiah could have been convicted of blasphemy.

Although there are serious problems with the Markan trial scene, contradiction with the late 2nd century CE law code in Mishnah Sanhedrin are not necessarily a problem. This code may not have been operative before the fall of Jerusalem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The death of John the Baptist

Arguably, Mark also makes one very notable historical error in that he places the execution of John the Baptist within the life of Jesus. According to Josephus, however, JBap was arrested and executed about 36 CE, several years after the crucifixion.

To be fair, there is no corroboration for Josephus' date, so this may be better characterized as a conflict with Josephus than a proveable error but there is no corroboration for Mark's dating either. Between Mark and Josephus, at least one of them is wrong and possibly both. I think It is also fair to say that Mark is more likely to be wrong than Josephus.

IMO Josephus is not unambiguous here, unless one regards everything as in exact chronological order. To say that people thought something happening to Herod around 36 CE was a judgment for killing John around say 30 CE seems quite plausible.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 03-09-2005, 04:49 PM

Discussion of day and night has been split off here

rlogan · 03-10-2005, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Arguably, Mark also makes one very notable historical error in that he places the execution of John the Baptist within the life of Jesus. According to Josephus, however, JBap was arrested and executed about 36 CE, several years after the crucifixion.

To be fair, there is no corroboration for Josephus' date, so this may be better characterized as a conflict with Josephus than a proveable error but there is no corroboration for Mark's dating either. Between Mark and Josephus, at least one of them is wrong and possibly both. I think It is also fair to say that Mark is more likely to be wrong than Josephus.

Seems pretty clear to me that mark is quote-mining from Isaiah to open up his book with the voice crying out in the wilderness.

That is, JBapt. is used to "credential" Jesus, heralding his coming "as it is written".

Now, you can't very well have JBapt running around forecasting the coming of a savior and then have the savior die before John. So we have a literary motive for Mark fudging the dates.

If Isaiah had made a point of the herald out-living the "savior" then we would see that in the gospel.

Nice Work.

DramaQ · 03-14-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Most of Matthew's personal inaccuracies (Independent of Mark) are in blatant misconstruals of passages from the Hebrew Bible as being Messianic prophecies.

My personal favorite is Matt 21:7. Having J riding on a donkey and her colt at the same time to fulfill a misread prophesy. Rather cheeky adding an extra bit of ass!

dq

Atheos · 10-24-2005, 04:45 PM

BUMP! I'd like to see part 4 when you get the time Diogenes. This is excellent stuff. :thumbs:

-Atheos

Awmte · 10-28-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

BUMP! I'd like to see part 4 when you get the time Diogenes. This is excellent stuff. :thumbs:

-Atheos

Hell, yeah. I strongly second that motion.
Or is this gonna be like Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming?

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-28-2005, 06:53 AM

OK. I got sort of pulled away from working on this at the time and never really got back to it. I'll start workshopping and hopefully have the last part up by the end of the weekend.

Atheos · 11-03-2005, 07:40 PM

Looking forward to it. Thanks for all the hard work, Diogenes!

-Atheos

11-20-2005, 11:13 PM

Bump for OF,

who thinks the Gospels are authentic history by eye-witnesses...

Iasion

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

03-09-2005, 04:49 PM	#73
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Discussion of day and night has been split off here

10-24-2005, 04:45 PM	#76
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	BUMP! I'd like to see part 4 when you get the time Diogenes. This is excellent stuff. :thumbs: -Atheos

10-28-2005, 06:53 AM	#78
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	OK. I got sort of pulled away from working on this at the time and never really got back to it. I'll start workshopping and hopefully have the last part up by the end of the weekend.

11-03-2005, 07:40 PM	#79
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	Looking forward to it. Thanks for all the hard work, Diogenes! -Atheos

11-20-2005, 11:13 PM	#80
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Bump for OF, who thinks the Gospels are authentic history by eye-witnesses... Iasion

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.