Vinnie

Thanks for your other commens and the link on dating. I'll make sure I read it tomorrow (heading to work for a double now).

That looks like the embarrassment criterion or a modification of it.

For instance, GMark has material which goes againsts its own theological grain. For example, a paucity of gentile related material. Mark clearly believed in a gentile mission and if there was any evidence of a Gentile mission known to Mark of the other synoptists--the argument goes--they would have certainly used it.

Ergo, like Sanders and others argue, Jesus conducted a mission probably strictly to Jews.

Am I missing you? Is this how you formulate specs of the HJ?

I think I read a long list of your methodology somewhere once on your site? It was impressive. Mind posting it?

and Vork, the factuality of the empty tomb has long been dismissed

Vinnie

Yuri Kuchinsky

But which GMark, Bernard? Are you talking about the one that the two Biblical Fishermen, Westcott & Hort, had reconstructed in the 19th century from their favourite 4th/5h century Egyptian manuscripts?

So is this the GMark that "came first"? Well, it came first in the 19th century, that's for sure. But you're saying that this was the first century Mark? Based on what?

Best,

Yuri.

Doctor X

Bernard:

Proves a false analogy that does not address my point. Police detectives do tend to examine crime scenes that resulted from actions they investigate. I will restate my point:

I remain unaware of any extant sources that preserve a picture of "earliest Christianity."

This, too, does not address my point. If anything, it supports it:

Argumentum ad veritatum obfuscandam since my observation does not involve sitting on a fence. It does, I must confess, avoid falling off a fence into a chasm inhabited by virulently ravenous crotch crickets.

My point recognizes the reality of the situation and the limitations which, it seems, too many forget [Strawman.--Ed.] Hush!

I am rather old fashioned. Reading long texts on the CPU causes my eyes to water. I long for a journal article which has undergone peer review or a book which has allowed itself to undergo review as well.

Neither should prove, I think, a difficult endevour.

Will note, en passant that Amos, once again, reads his beliefs into the text. The young man was not crucified since he fled the arrest naked.

Regarding Yuri, whether you agree with his conception of textual priority or not--to which I would give him the same advice as I gave you, Bernard--he does demonstrate the uncertainty of your evidence which makes such a claim as "earliest Christianity" rather untenable.

Yes, one can "construct" a conception. I have one from a mentor which I rather like, actually. He stressed, however, that it merely "accounts for" events "we think" "may have" happened. Until someone digs something up--which does not end up on someone's toilet--we are left with this uncertainty.

--J.D.

Amos

The young man was wearing white garments to compliment his victory and that is in perfect harmony with the promises made in the book of Revelations. The transition from "son of man" to "young man" is very appropriate in this context and only Mark could have seen this young man 'as man' because Matt. Luke and John have the spiritual resurrection to deal with. In other words, for Mark it was just a freightening encounter with no further implications whatsoever.

Vorkosigan

delete

Doctor X

Sometimes this is like trying to explain the infield fly rule to a cat.

--J.D.

Amos

Sorry, I don't play you game because I think you are trying to play soccer on a football field.

Bernard Muller

J.D. wrote:
Proves a false analogy that does not address my point. Police detectives do tend to examine crime scenes that resulted from actions they investigate.

Let's say the crime was the start of Christianity. The scene which is being investigated is just that. And who do not agree Christianity had to start and Christianity is factual (that is really existing)?
And start of Christianity entails previous actions.

J.D. wrote:
Regarding Yuri, whether you agree with his conception of textual priority or not--to which I would give him the same advice as I gave you, Bernard--he does demonstrate the uncertainty of your evidence which makes such a claim as "earliest Christianity" rather untenable.

That's the problem I am facing. There is so much noise, so many theories, controversies & discreditations, that even if someone propose something well researched, coherent, documented, within reason, complete, he/she is not considered.

J.D. wrote:
Yes, one can "construct" a conception.

You can construct all kinds of conception, as long as you take in account a small part of the evidence. However if you take care of all the evidence, then only one "conception" will be validated.
In the later case, if more than one can be validated, then that means there is not enough evidence. Despite the limitations of data, I do not think we have that problem for the beginning of Christianity. Anyway, in my title, I was not arrogant: I wrote: "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" and NOT "Jesus, THE historical reconstruction.
If someone else can come up with another reconstruction as complete and evidenced as mine, so be it! But I am very doubful.

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

Save that the investigation involves evidence created 50+ years after the fact.

False Analogy.

With all due respect this is an argument I receive from proponents of flim flam--"the establishment is just too threatened to publish the Truth. [Tm.--Ed.]" I think, on the contrary, a "well researched, coherent, documented, within reason, complete" theory would receive consideration--since they have received consideration and achieved publication.

Nevertheless, the point of my clarification was that the lack of certain evidence close enough to "earliest Christianity" makes conclusions regarding it untenable.

Ipse dixit and, I am afraid, wrong since, as stated above, the evidence we have does not allow for such certainty.

Thus:

evidence suggests otherwise, unfortunately. Of course "unfortunately" is in the eye of the beholder; uncertainty allows for graduate programs and grants.

For some reason I am reminded of a play in Hamlet. . . .

--J.D.

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
I have some kind of love-hate relationship with everything. Even bugs. I am in entomology class right now, as well as both a "lab" and "lecture" for anthropology, and a "Western Civilization" class, and a "Cultural Geography" class.
What is your background for understanding life?

Sorry, Peter, I missed your post and just notice it now.
First, & do not take it as an offence, my understanding of life benefits from more years than yours. That's just the way it happened.
About me, and my so so life, you can read it on this site:
Bernard Muller [101]
I want to add up that in my youth, I was much influenced by Sartre (existentialism) and Kafka (absurdism?).
I had plenty of rough time in my teen years and the first 2 years in Canada.
Then, I managed to go through life without experiencing any major trial, taking minimum risks, even if I was very deeply into mountaineering, and scrambling some of the tallest peaks in the rockies alone, and also traveling on my own in many third world countries.
My traveling there and other places deeply influenced me, that is in enjoying a life not based on status or accumulation of wealth, but more simple (& less expensive) things.
And I think knowing more how people live & think in poor towns & villages, in situations not too much different than 1st century Galilee, helps a lot.
I wish scholars who think Jesus as a scholar dealing (in towns & villages) with other scholars (including themselves!) should spend time out of their studies and into these surroundings.
Are you hinting you need to take university courses to understand life?

Best regards, Bernard