spin

Can you understand what the problem of the gospel notion of messiah (christ) is without knowing the cultural background to the notion of "messiah"? (The Jewish messiah was a military figure who would liberate the Jews and bring on a realm in which they would be the leaders and he would rule the world according to traditions that were already in development, as seen for example in the Psalms of Solomon -- ask for refs if needed.)

If that were true, why did two gospel cannibalize Mk as a literary source then modify it according to the redactors' needs?

And Lucian calls his fantasy about a trip to the moon "A True Story". Authors need to be analysed for what they are doing. Are there lessons constructed in the gospels by the writers for their communities? Do we see the biases of the writers? Is Lk trying to be a Greek style history? Is Mt a Jewish style history? What do the differences entail regarding reality? Do both represent a reality when they give Jesus different words or deeds? Are we looking at history at all? If so, how would you know?

But what are they able to tell you about a real Jesus?

The dating of P52 is subject to debate. One of my problems with the date is that it is a codex rather than a scroll and codices were only being experimented with in Rome at the end of the 1st c., so such an early codex of John seems highly suspect. For an analysis of the dating based on handwriting, read the Wiki entry on the John Rylands Papyrus P52.


(So you believe, though believing doesn't make it so.)

Yes, we've debated Papias here numerous times.

What we read about Papias is about Papias and his supposed knowledge. It gives us nothing consistent with the gospels. It is merely ancillary information drawn into the non-biblical side of christian tradition.

Why? because he uses another written source available to the writer of Lk? What we see is a literary effort. And what you are doing is reading in some of the non-gospel material into your image of the writer of Mt.

Certainly not. Both Lk and Mt were written far enough after Mk to need to change it significantly. Both add theologically motivated material, manipulate information. Do you think the writer of Mt actually saw Jesus ride on two animals in the triumphant entry? Do you think that the writer corrected the words that Jesus cited from Ps 22 during the crucifixion because he heard them better or did he simply make it closer to the Psalm? Did Jesus heal one man at Jericho as per Mk 10:46ff or two as Mt indicates? Did Jesus talk about the kingdom of god or the kingdom of heaven? These changes do not inspire one with the notion of an eyewitness.

There's nothing natural about your claim. An analysis of the changes in the gospels gives no sign of improvement towards reality but towards more theological ends.

Without any corroboration we have no history. (And Josephus is no help with the central material in the gospels, despite his texts being augmented in antiquity once by scribal clarification and once by shamefaced insertion, both by christian scribes.)

You must start with known quantities. You cannot assume things. You can't tell me how you know that the gospels contain historical information rather than appear to be relatively consistent stories.

Until they can be shown somehow to contain historical material in its main accounts, they cannot be accepted as veracious. When a witness is brought into court, they must first be credentialed before they are heard.

Do you accept the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James (both containing information about the early life of Jesus)? What about Paul's Letter to the Laodoceans? Or Paul's Letters to Seneca?

We have enough verified in the work of Tacitus to be able to carry out historical research into his narrative, his interests, his biases, and his shaping of his information. The gospel writers are anonymous and their writings are opaque to us as to their history and context.


spin

aa5874

I do not know on what basis you made such a claim, your honest opinion is extremely vague. What really is the "degree" to which the OT was used and is it substantially less than what is written by the authors of the Gospels?

• All the so-called prophecies about the coming of Jesus are from the OT.
• The birth of Jesus is from the OT.
• The genealogy of the so-called father of Jesus is from the OT.
• The fleeing of Jesus to Egypt is from the OT.
• The killing of the innocent is fulfilled prophecy from the OT.
• John the Baptist is fulfilled prophecy from the OT.
• The lenght of time Jesus fasted is from the OT.
• The sayings of Jesus are based on the OT.
• The trial and crucifixion are based on the OT.
• His resurrection is based on the OT.

Is this degree to which the OT was used substantially less than your honest opinion?

Jeffrey Gibson

All of them? If so, could you demonstrate this please?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

The prophecies quoted in the NT from the OT are from the OT.
The birth stories are very heavily influenced by the OT.
The genealogy is partly from the OT.
The flight into Egypt and killing of the innocents are from the OT.
The acount of the career of John the Baptist is IMO mostly history/legend despite the OT allusions.
The reference to 40 days (as distinct from say over a month) fasting is from the OT.
The sayings of Jesus draw heavily upon the OT but also contain much original material some of which critiques the OT and/or traditional interpretations thereof.
IMO the core of the narrative about the trial crucifixion and empty tomb (say the material on which all four gospels agree) is not heavily based on the OT, although much of the material found in one Gospel only may be derived from the OT.
The resurrection appearances do not seem based on the OT.

Andrew Criddle

paarsurrey

Hi

Jesus was a Jew and a follower of Moses; so his drawing so much from the OT is understandable. The only thing which is most different from the OT is his literal or physical resurrection. Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross; so his resurrection from the dead is mythical.

Thanks

Malachi151

I normally agree with you on things spin, but you're way off the "mark" here. First of all, I did address exactly what you are talking about in the post that you quote, you just chose to skip that part. I've already provided the fuller explanation in this thread:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showpos...9&postcount=38

This whole issue is addressed much more fully in my article: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Several things to point out with the feeding scenes specifically.

#1) We can see from an examination of the Gospel of Mark that many literary references are made back to the the Hebrew scriptures.

#2) We see in the Gospel of Mark a series of references made to the Elijah/Elisha narratives in 1 Kings and 2 Kings.

#3) We see that the apparent references to the Elijah/Elisha narratives fall neatly into a section of the Gospel and follows distinct patterns. The Elijah/Elisha narrative parallels are used within the first third of the Markan narrative where the characters are being identified and constructed. The actions that Jesus takes, the miracles that he performs, are patterned on the miracles of Elisha.

#4) The feeding scenes are themselves apparently based on the miracles of Elisha. The feeding scenes in Mark are almost word for word copies of the feeding scene in 2 Kings.

#5) The two feeding scenes in Mark are set within a larger "doublet". That "doublet" (for lack of a better word) ends in Mark 8 with a teaching scenes that summarizes the lessons of the "doublet". This is Mark 8:14-21, which specifically addresses the Pharisees and the feeding scenes.

This is all indicative of quite a complex and multi-layered constructed symbolic narrative that was carefully crafted by the author, it is not at all indicative of someone simply compiling various random tales that have been handed down to him.

If we agree that the feeding scenes are based on the Elisha feeding scene in 2 Kings, then are you claiming that the "sources" which the author of Mark used were also both based on 2 Kings? Are you claiming that the author of Mark took two sources and then reinterpreted them int the light of two Kings? Are you claiming that all of the Elijah/Elisha parallels came from "other sources"?

How do you explain Mark 8:19-21?

Here all of the numbers are repeated again, specifically calling out 12 and 7. (In my estimation 12 = Israel, 7 = Rome)

Why would this scene be included if the two feeding scenes were just the passing on of two different traditions?

Why would the author even bother with the two feeding scenes when in reality there only real different between them is the numbers?

Very clearly is appears to me that the author was engaging in symbolic math here, he wasn't repeating these two things because one guy told him one set of numbers and someone else told him a different set.

According to the "two source" theory the numbers here are meaningless, totally unimportant, they just happen to be two different sets of numbers that cropped up in two different threads of the traditions.

My explanation of these two feedings scenes is much more complex than that, and much more holistic, dealing with the narrative elements regarding Jews and Gentiles that separate the two scenes.

My view of it is that in the one scene he is feeding the people of Israel, in the other scene he is feeding the Gentiles. The Jews are fed first, then the Gentiles, which reflects the passage that separates these two scenes where Jess says that the Jews are to be fed first, then the Gentiles.

[First feeding scene takes place on Jesus' hometown's side of the lake]

[Second feeding scene takes place on the other side of the lake]

This does not at all look like the simple compiling of two sources, it looks like a very intentionally crafted symbolic narrative, which would had to have been developed by the mind of a single narrative creator.

aa5874

I said that the resurrection itself, not the resurrection appearances, is based on the OT. The authors just had to fabricated stories about the resurrection appearances.

Matthew 12.40 Jonah 1.17

andrewcriddle

This linkage of Jonah in the whale and Jesus in the tomb is found only in Mathew and appears late. Probably later than the claims about the resurrection. Hence it is unlikely that the resurrection claims were originally based on Jonah. (It is in any case unlikely, in the absence of a belief in the resurrection, that anyone would invent such a belief purely on the basis of Jonah.)

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
A number of problems here:

1) I have Faith that most Skeptics here have no idea to what extent "Mark" used the Jewish Bible and Paul OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source as sources.

2) There is probably a significant difference in intent between the original author "Mark" and the Editors "Matthew"/"Luke"/"John".

3) Most of "Mark" is Impossible so it is a fact that "Mark" lacked historical witness for most of his Gospel. Therefore "Mark" probably knew that most of his Gospel was not historical. Add to this the likely sources above, the classic Greek Tragedy style and anti-biography attitude and it is something more than probable that "Mark" knew what he wrote was not primarily hsitory.

4) You need to step back a level with a claim of historical intent. "Mark" almost certainly knew he was not writing history but it is possible that he wanted his audience to think he was. "Mark" does have a primary theme that if you believe it's true, than it really is true. Personally though I think the extreme level of Contrivance makes it likely that "Mark" thought his audience would recognize the contrivance.

5) The failure of Christianity to identify the author suggests that there never was anyone who claimed to have written "Mark" and claimed that it was historical. It than had to be attributed, after the fact, to someone who could not have written it.



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Solo

Ok, but what then did the author of 1 Cr 15:4 have in mind saying that Christ was raised on the third day "in accordance with the scriptures" ?

That passage is very early, isn't it Andrew ?

Jiri