Jayrok

I'm currently on the fence with regard to whether Jesus existed or not. That said, I believe Mark was written mostly as symbolic (i.e. fig tree, demons cast into swine, etc.).

For those that believe Mark or Matthew and Luke were written into the second century, how do you address the issue of Jesus predicting the coming of the Son of Man during that particular generation? It seems if they were written in the second century by Christians they would not include this statement by Jesus since it would seem embarrassing to the Church since it didn't come true.

The same might be said with other sayings of Jesus, such as when he told his disciples that the 12 of them would sit on thrones of judgment in the Kingdom of God judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Why would a later Christian author include such a saying if he knew he was going to have Judas, one of the 12, betray Jesus and commit suicide? Would a Christian author include Judas as one of the 12 Jesus said would judge Israel in the new Kingdom?

B. Ehrman uses these examples, I believe, as part of the "criterion of dissimilarity" he uses to support the idea that the sayings of Jesus are authentic.

I'm certain this has been addressed here but I haven't been able to find a specific thread that addresses this specific group of sayings.

Thanks,

Jay

jon-eli

Then you and I already agree on a lot.

Myself, I don't think Mark was written in the 2nd century. Matthew and Luke, on the other hand, seem to be aware that everyone has been waiting for something that hasn't come. The Parable of the Talents is often cited as an example of their angst. I'll let you form your own opinion on that one. The technical term is "delay of the parousia"... that's what you'd be Googling for, if you wanted to look further into the subject.

There's been talk that early Christians may have extra-textually redeemed Judas to some extent. I guess it's a personal call, whether you think he's redeemable or not. But surely he did nothing worse than what Peter did? And in any case, Paul seems to have not known of Judas' betrayal, suggesting that Mark created the story.

If I recall correctly, Ehrman's "criterion of dissimilarity" is the same as the "criterion of embarrassment," and therefore suffers from the same problems. I don't buy the idea that we know what would or wouldn't've been embarrassing to the early Church. And more to the point, I don't think the gospels were written by committees, or that they were written to please the church... they are works of an individual, intended to describe the author's personal philosophy and theology, rather than enforce the doctrine of "the church," which wouldn't have really existed in any tangible fashion (it's important not to be anachronistic when thinking about church structure in the early days... but it's an easy mistake).

You're not the only one. This place needs an index. And an editor.

Toto

Instead of an index, we have a search function, or Google.

From the home page of this Forum, try a few key words, such as "prediction generation" and find Jesus' Second Coming Prophecy in the Gospels with contributions from Earl Doherty and Neil Godfrey.

DCHindley

Finally, Lunch break.

My personal take is that the Gospels were written to serve as the Christian communities' first "apologies" intended to explain to the Roman authorities, as best they could, who their founder was and why he should NOT be treated as a subversive, and by extension they (the Christians) should not be subject to prosecution.

The author of Mark presents Jesus as a kind of prophetic reformer whose moralistic teachings posed no real threat to the authorities, but who got caught up in inter-Jewish political rivalries that led to his unjust arrest and execution.

Just after the Jewish rebellion this might have seemed plausible, as in his Jewish War Josephus had presented the Jewish authorities as caught up in intrigues and internal rivalries that had led to the tragic rebellion and the consequent destruction of their temple, and Jesus could be seen as a casualty of these rivalries.

The gospels of Matthew and Luke incorporated a body of more-or-less Jewish wisdom sayings (Q) into their apologies, reinforcing the idea that Jesus was a harmless sage.

By presenting themselves (Christians) as a level removed (the anti-Jewish put-downs) from all that feuding, the gospel writers could say "We (Christians) are all well beyond that kind of petty bickering thing which led to sedition!"

Of course, this does not mean that things REALLY happened that way, only that the Christians spun it that way. Any facts to be found in them must then be inferred by context and by asking what kinds of specific charges (official and/or those contained in non-Christian public opinion) they seemed to be trying to deflect.

DCH

jon-eli

Well, oh yes. But the search results are not weighted by quality, are they? As probably the most qualified person to put together a comprehensive index, methinks you are weaseling out of the sheer tedium you'd have to endure. I hereby reserve the right to call you lazy whenever I'm in a bad mood.

bacht

Maybe Mark was making a comment about the messianic expectations raised during the bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, or messianism in general. The Jesus of the gospels is more of an anti-messiah re traditional Judaism.

The prediction at the end of John's gospel didn't come true either (that the beloved disciple would still be alive when Jesus returned)

The criterion of embarassment has been discussed here before, it doesn't seem to have much relevance to Christian origins

Toto

We had a previous mod, otherwise known as god, named Peter Kirby. He was not lazy, he was highly qualified, and he put together an index which I think you can still find referenced in one of the stickies. But that was years ago, and it became almost instantly obsolete.

Sloth is one of my favorite of the seven deadly sins. I've been called worse.

jon-eli

What would they have been defending? A superstitio that was indistinguishable to the Roman eye from Judaism, I suppose. To be serious... what little respect Judaism received, derived from it being an ancient religion. Why would these "apologies" root themselves in such recent history?

A harmless sage who exuded anti-Roman sentiment?

What led to sedition on the part of the Jews, was often messianism, which the gospels allowed the Christians to be legitimately accused of.

Jayrok

I didn't mean to imply that the church collectively wrote Mark or the other gospels. And if written around AD 70 I could see the comment about "this generation" still applicable.

I'm talking more regarding redactors of later generations who had access to what would fit into the canon. For instance, whoever inserted the later ending to Mark, if this was done in the 2nd or 3rd century prior to canonization, why would they leave such a statement of Jesus, which turned out to be untrue after all that time had passed, in the gospel?

aa5874

So, if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written early then why would these authors include the resurrection and ascension when these events are obviously false or implausible?

Why would these authors claim that there was darkness for 3 hours when Jesus was crucified as this event is obviously false?


The failed prophecy is consistent with all the holes in the Jesus stories and is an indication that the stories were written very long after the supposed events when all the so-called witnesses or the fabricated main characters like Jesus, Peter and Paul would have died.

Inconsistencies and contradictions in a story destroy the credibility of the author or the veracity of the events.



It is illogical to use holes in a story to claim the very same story is authentic.

Authenticity must depend on external non-apologetic corroboration.