ApostateAbe

Grog, it is an interesting hypothesis, and my disagreement with it is sort of rooted in a past experience. Years ago, I remember that a mythicist made the claim that the gospel passion narrative was based on the story of Daniel in the lion's den. I searched the web, and I found the same claim made by a conservative Christian. He draws parallels between Daniel 27 and Matthew 27, as evidence that Daniel in the lion's den was a historical foreshadowing, guided by God, of the passion sequence of Christ. The parallels are as follows:

[T2]
Bible Book 27 (Daniel)
|
Matthew Chapter 27
||
Daniel delivered because of envy

[vs. 6:3] Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, ... and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom.
|
Jesus delivered because of envy

[vs. 18] For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
||
Daniel declared innocent

[vs. 6:3f] Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. [vs. 622 describes Daniel with the word innocency.]
|
Jesus declared innocent

[vs. 3] Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. [Matthew 27 contains the only occurrrence of the word innocent in Matthew.
||
Daniel could interpret dreams

[vs. 6:4] Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel,
|
Pilate's wife warned in a dream

[vs. 19] When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
||
Leaders plot to kill Daniel

[vs. 6:11] Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?
|
Leaders plot to kill Jesus

[vs. 1] When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
||
The King sought to free Daniel

[vs. 6:14,18] Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. ... Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him.
|
Pilate sought to free Jesus

[vs. 23f] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
||
The stone is sealed

[vs. 6:17] And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
|
The stone is sealed

[vs. 65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
||
King says "he [God] will deliver thee."

[vs. 6:16] Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee.
|
Mockers say "let him [God] deliver him."

[vs. 43] He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
[/T2]
My objections to this hypothesis were as follows:

• Each parallel represents only a vague similarity.
• The case counts the parallels and overlooks the non-parallels.
• The Old Testament is long, and there are plenty of stories to choose from.
• If the general historical/literary theme matches, then it is more likely that the details will match to some extent.

The combination of these points means that the parallels can be explained largely as mere random coincidences. Cases of common derivation based on parallels tend to be more persuasive than they should be, especially to those outside the field of study. A strong case for common derivation can be made if there is verbal agreement. If there is no verbal agreement, then a strong case for common derivation is more difficult.

aa5874

Your claim is rather strange. Your Jesus was derived from the Bible an unrealiable source filled with Fiction and Implausibilities yet you seem to think that people of antiquity could NOT have used the Bible to do what you have done.

Of course, Jesus came from the Bible.

The Historical Jesus was pulled from the Fables in the NT and Jesus, born of the Virgin and the Ghost was pulled from the OT.

It was the Ghost stories of Jesus of Nazareth, baptized by John and crucified by Pilate that was used for HJ.

All versions of Jesus are BIBLCAL--some use Isaiah 7.14 and some use Galatians 1.19.

The Bible is NOT credible, filled with FAKE authors and no known date of composition.

Grog

You chose to ignore that I was applying Adam Winn's (as related at Vridar) criteria for determining dependence:

You apply the traditional criteria (strong verbal agreement) that Winn challenges. So your argument is with Winn and you need to defend the traditional criteria. I accept that the probability of independence in two stories with the same structure, sequence, and details is low.

Grog

Could you elaborate on how what is known about the "earliest documents and varied sources" cause "any attempt to tie" Josephus to gmMark to fail miserably?

ApostateAbe

I wouldn't say that it is out of the question that one author could have sourced from another without strong verbal agreement. The problem is that a lack of strong verbal agreement makes for a more difficult case, because you can easily find parallels in a pair of literature that are completely unrelated.

The table I quoted makes a case for common derivation between the passion narrative of Matthew 27 and the story in Daniel 27, an argument based entirely on parallels. This argument is seemingly as strong as your case for the passion narrative of Mark being based on the narrative of Jesus ben Ananias from Josephus. But they can't both be true at the same time, and my claim is that both arguments fail for the same set of four reasons.

Grog

It is not an either/or problem. The parallels in the Josephus account are much closer though [temple festival-jesus disruption-questioned by Jewish officials-beaten-sent to Roman governor-flogged-found innocent by Roman governor-killed by Rome]. Winn's point about strong verbal agreement is that it would be considered bad form to slavishly copy. I point out that even where we know there are parallels, Mark does not slavishly copy.

They can be true at the same time. That's an assertion that is unfounded. It's obvious that the author gMark used multiple sources to build his passion story.

aa5874

Again, we cannot ignore the fact that there is NO actual dated evidence that gMark was written in the 1st century and that we have NO actual dated evidence that the author of gMark was alive during 26-36 CE.

Plus, we know that events with Jesus were INVENTED in gMark, that is, not only did these NOT happen they could have NEVER happened.

1. gMark is NOT credible.

2. The authorsip of gMark is unknown.

3. There is NO dated evidence to corroborate gMark.

4. There is a known Interpolated gMark.

We cannot use gMark to reconstruct the past--gMark is a Myth Fable with virtually ALL fiction or implausible events surrounding Jesus.

ApostateAbe

I didn't anticipate that you would accept the probability that Mark sourced from both texts at the same time, but, come to think of it, it is logically possible, and I shouldn't have discounted it. I may have an excessive prejudice against arguments based on parallels just by seeing such arguments used by conspiracy theorists and mystics too often.

Grog

I've never read most of the mythicists that are referenced (Archaya, for example). I have read Doherty's Jesus Puzzle, Thompson, and Wells. I don't view them as conspiracy theorists though. I don't put much stock on parallels myself except for the fact that such ideas floated around generally. sort of like in Hollywood, you'll see the same themes coming out at the same time (like this year's snow white movies, a few years ago 2 different mall cop movies, etc).

aa5874

Oh, NO you don't!!! You Conveniently use "parallels" to support your arguments but when others show you that the Jesus story is paralleled in the works of Josephus all of a sudden it is used by conspiracy theorists and mystics.

Well, you are a Conspiracy theorist and Mystic too.

You are so ATTACHED to parallels that you even see them in Non-existing Texts.

Q, M, and L have NOT ever been found but you SEE PARALLELS in them.

The Pauline writer also "SAW" events that could NOT have been seen.

I really can no longer trust what you say. You say one thing in one thread and say something different in another.

You promote Bait and Switch arguments. You advertise HISTORY but attempt to sell us NON-existing Q, M and L.