Chris Weimer

And anyone finding such loose parallels is foolish as well. Tell me, where does Mark say that this young man was a brave warrior? What indications are there that this passage is what Mark is referencing?

jgibson000

Which academics specifically have you "seen" say this -- without the qualification or the acknowledgment that this is what the Acts accounts say)? Names please.

More specifically, which Pauline scholars have you "seen" say that "Paul was "converted" on the Damascus road" is something that Paul himself says?

Are you actually saying that academics you have "seen" saying that Paul was "converted" on the road to Damascus are not aware that there is a difference between what Acts says and what Paul says about his "conversion" and that Paul says nothing directly about the circumstances of the event?


JG

Spanky

Dear Mr. Gregg, you know you cannot achieve this, right? There are too many ideologies involved. Too much pride. I'm not too hip on Doherty's explanation of how things went down but I also find myself annoyed at everyone's attempt to deface him. I agree, things should be less confrontational in regards to discussing his ideas, but you will never find that in Biblical Criticism and History. I have to admit, as an outsider looking in, I see a lot of immaturity from those debating these and other things. However, there are some well grounded adults amongst you! Sometimes the rhetoric is worse than in politics. It's kind of sad, really.
I know I don't contribute to this sub-forum much. I really only speak in a moderating voice like. . .why do you/don't you do this, or, get on subject, or, how can you believe in this shit (what not). But I also wish those that are knowledgable would quite acting like kids and debate accordingly. Fuck Greek, fuck scholars, fuck appealing to authority. Let's fucking talk about what we know.
I, Mr. Spanky, also ask that there would be more spirited inquiry and less sniping!



www.deveryharpermusic.com

Malachi151

Amos 2 was the passage that I had already identified as the basis for the Judas scene.

There are many points of correlation here, not just one. First of all, I had already tied Amos 2 and Mark 14 together, without even having looked at the naked passage.

Judas and Judah are of course the same basic name.

This fits exactly the same type of references that are seen throughout the Gospel of Mark. Granted some are more clear than others, but you can see in all of them that the correlations aren't exact, the author had to be a little loose in order to make the references fit into his story line.

Take a few other examples:

To say nothing of Palm 22, or Amos 8:

But, it's not just random correlations between Mark and the OT, the OT passages themselves have a pattern.

The author of Mark only used a few OT books, mostly Amos, Isaiah, Daniel, Hosea, and Zechariah.

The majority of correlations fall within these books.

In addition to that, there is a whole second story line based on the OT passages, and that second story line is cohesive based on the references I have put together.

I haven't fully worked out the whole second storyline yet, but basically the Gospel of Mark is two parallel stories, one in the text of Mark itself, and the second is in the references that underly Mark.

But, the references I have put together so far all fit into a pattern, they don't just jump around. All of the passages from towards the end of the story, leading up to the crucifixion, are increasingly strong denunciations of Israel that talk about God destroying Israel.

So, looking at the "naked" passage in Amos 2 there are these issues to deal with:

1) Amos 2 also denounces the "sins of Judas" as does Mark 14
2) Amos 2 also talks about selling the righteous for silver as does Mark 14
3) Amos 2 ends with a prophesy that Israel will be destroyed and even the bravest will flee naked. In Mark 14, after everyone else had fled, one young man was still following, then he fled naked.

Now, there are no other passaged in the OT at all that talk about someone fleeing naked like this. The only one is in Amos 2.

The guy isn't portrayed as a warrior, but he is perhaps brave, as he is the last remaining and he is or warrior age, a young man, and why the hell else would a man fleeing naked even be mentioned?

There was also discussion of people with swords and clubs, which may play into this as well, though without more language knowledge and access to the best sources I'm at a dead end there.

The guy was wearing just a linen garment, because how else could the author of Mark was gotten this guy to flee naked in a reasonable manner? I guess they could have stripped him, but he had to set it up somehow that it would seem at least somewhat reasonable that there would be a naked person fleeing.

But again, it's not just the fleeing of the naked person, it's the fact that these same types references are used throughout Mark, the other elements of Amos 2 correlate to Mark 14, and Amos 2 fits with the other OT passages that underly the surrounding passages in the Gospel.

Solo

You are full of it, Jeffrey. The whole point of the Christian texts was to proclaim the divine nature of Jesus and his status as Saviour. You yourself argued in the virgin-birth thread that Jesus was a polemic to the Augustan claim to divinity which, if I am not mistaken, was pagan. I agree. Judaism had nothing that could counter a cult like the Julio-Claudian one. The Christian god-man had to be created, and it was created, first in the predominantly Hellenized Jewish diaspora, and later, by the Gentile church. The Nazorean community (which has never been shown by anything but propaganda to be a Christian church) had very little to contribute to the formation of the creed: it likely revered Yeshua as a prophet of the last days (beside John the Baptist), a just man who was raised by God - at some point, probably after the death of James, adding a belief he would return in Judgment of Israel.
Jesus, as the fountainhead of the new religion of Christianity, was no 'agent of God' () who 'deserved' () 'allegiance' () - what utter rubbish. Christ started with Paul as a crucified Redeemer, a complex abstract theological thesis, which grew out and shaped whatever fragmentary lore transfered from the original, small group around the earthly Galilean Jesus. Both the Pauline phenom of Christ and its gospel incarnation stressed his unique relation to God and function of God (which Paul invented and propagated), conferring on him powers and dignity of a supernatural personage. These attributes were there since Paul started to win first converts. Deny it and you are condemned already (as per Jn 3:18).

Jiri

krosero

Almost everyone knows and accepts that it's a fallacy, when two events occur closely in time, to see one as causing the other. Timing does not, by itself, indicate causation -- though of course no one will deny that timing can be one clue to consider.

Literary parallels seems like a similar issue, a place with a similar pitfall. The mind has a gift for finding patterns, and you know, like so many things the mind does, the gift can be tremendously useful -- if you know what's going on. If you take the parallels that your mind puts together and do not try to find other explanations for the parallels other than dependence, you don't, in my opinion, understand how difficult it is to flank the mind's movements; you're simply riding them.

I don't say this, by the way, on the authority of MY OWN ability to tame my mind. Hardly. Nor am I even claiming that I'm more aware of the problem than the average person. My basis for saying this is simply that we have a list of fallacies, painfully won after trial and error and most of human history, in which the raw mind is understood to be a hotbed of fallacious conclusions. That's why our raw thinking needs superb education and the discipline that such education imparts.

My little speech from the soapbox (of my mind).

Kevin

krosero

The Jesus Puzzle, and its readers, would at least benefit from a caveat to the effect that the work has not been vetted for mistakes and weaknesses by a process of qualified peer review.

The Jesus Puzzle, with this caveat, would deserve more respect, not less, at least in my eyes, even if such a caveat might reduce the strength of the book in some eyes.

Kevin

krosero

Thanks for letting me know, I do look forward to it.

aa5874

Where are you?


Aristotle was also Greek.

youngalexander

This thread has been one of the most informative exchanges that I have read on BC&H.

I cannot but endorse the above comment. With emphasis.

IMO, thus far the weight of argument (Gregg excepted) is Zeichman, Chris Weimer, jgibson000 40-love. The protagonists, for they are not all MJers, need to lift their game. It is not entirely lost - but I fear, given their intellectual proclivities, the result is inevitable.

What a pity. My own, somewhat naive and decidedly tentative venture into the debate was more circumspect. I have learnt a great deal since then, yet still appreciate that these very difficult questions are a matter of probability.

As a physicist and atmospheric scientist I know what it is like to discuss GW on S&S with posters who have little or no scientific training and yet are prepared to make the most outlandish statements of fact and methodology in order to support some political or economic point. All that one can do is argue the science. It becomes rather tiring, but fortunately we tend to take it in relays. I also try to play a minor support role in the IDC debate, it not being my specialty.

It saddens me to say this, but some of you guys really are little better than creationists & (I would add) GW anthropogenic deniers. I could quote quotes, but there is little point (ask me and I shall oblige).

However, certain false analogies have been drawn in that regard, and I shall discuss them ere long.