andrewcriddle

Paul may have just meant that Christ was raised in fulfilment of the scriptures and that this happened (according to the tradition handed down to Paul) on the third day.

If Paul is thinking of a Scriptural basis for resurrection on the third day then IIMHO it was probably Hosea 6:2 Again this would IMO only be seen as relevant to Christ if one already believed in the resurrection.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It does not follow that it is unlikely that any one would invent such a belief purely on Jonah when it is in actually in gMatthew, and all the authors of the gospels implied that Jesus would be raised after three days.

How can you tell what a person would invent?

It is unrealistic for you to claim what is likely or unlikely to be not invented when the story about Jesus is fundamentally legendary and fiction.

Malachi151

One also cannot discount the possibility that this line is in fact part of an interpolation, and that in fact it is a late interpolation after the Gospels, where someone is in fact referring to the Gospels as the scritpures.

A lot of people discount this, but much of the material in the passage in 1 Cor 15 appears to be interpolations to clear up later political issues, so it may in fact be the case.

As for Jonah and the whale, I don't think it has anything to do with that.

Also, "in accordance with the scriptures" may not be referring to the third day, rather it may simply be referring to being raised, in which case there are at least half a dozen passages in the Hebrew scriptures that talk about being brought back to life.

Clivedurdle

It might or might not be an allegedly late addition, but every preacher I have ever heard has always directly linked Jonah and the resurrection. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This is a basic xian assumption!

Ted Hoffman

But we know Pompey existed, unlike Jesus. This is a false analogy.
This is what is at issue. If we cant tell what he added from what he received, what is the basis of believing he received a tradition?
Would you agree that anyone who learned to write Greek in the ancient world learned from Homer? If you do not agree, what Greek textbooks do you think they used to learn Greek prose and the like?
Why do you believe this? And dont you agree that some of what he may have received were allegories?
By definition, a symbol or a sign is something used for or regarded as representing something else. A sign of course can be real, but that does not elevate it to the level of the signified: it still remains a signifier. Symbols are used in cultures and direct and organize, record and communicate large amounts of information in a quick and sometimes subtle way. Why don't we put aside Clinton's cigar (the one he inserted into Monica Lewinsky or the one he smoked with Arafat?) and concentrate on the exorcism of the demoniac for a while?
Unless you would like us to believe that the name of the demon was purely accidental, the idea that the mad man had broken chains, that the idea that the pigs drowned in the lake (temporal setting) and the idea that the freed mad man became a missionary were just incidentals in the story. Is that what you would like us to believe the author of Mark wanted us to believe?

In other words, you are advocating a literal reading of the gospel of Mark? If not, which passages do you consider as having symbolic import?
Because symbols, by definition, are signifiers.
But Tiberius was real. Whether he was kind or cruel or dark or light is neither here nor there.

andrewcriddle

The problems of credibility for a modern audience posed by Mark are not IMO particularly relevant to the question of its credibility to its original author and audience.

The influence of Greek Tragedy on Mark (about which I broadly agree) is certainly compatible with a broadly historical intent.
(On tragic history in the ancient world see for example Studies in Greek History and Thought By P. A. Brunt ) Accepting FTSOA that Mark is by an unknown writer, I don't see how this bears one way or the other on the question of historical intent.

Andrew Criddle

spin

That's a bloody weak response. The analogy is about someone's story being shaped by a previous story. You accept the analogy at its core and find some stupid reason to overlook it. Too late. It is sufficient that the gospel writer saw his subject as real and projected him onto an earlier figure, just like with Pompey. Case closed. Next.

I think we have some insight through the nature of the material in the tradition. Do you think the person who put together the material up to 13:37 wrote the passion?

Well, thinking about the little apocalypse, do you think that one person wrote that text as though it were a single composition? You know, your standard apocalyptic nation against nation, followed by your standard you will be persecuted, then the Daniel related desolating sacrilege and son of man allusions, finishing with the be watchful stuff? Mixture of Jewish apocalyptic, christian persecution and a taste of watcher material. Same writer created all this stuff? Ya gotta be kidding me!

You're shaping your author. His first language isn't Greek. How do you know under what circumstances he learnt Greek? Maybe he did a classics minor.

How many fundamentalists believe Adam and Eve literally? That they were real people? If 21st c. people can, what's your problem with slightly less sophisticated people of a few thousand years ago?

Because symbol and reality can be superimposed. You are simply denying that fact.

How many christians doubt the existence of Satan despite knowing his name means "adversary"? Take that back a few thousand years to a somewhat less sophisticated audience. So the demoniac was named "Legion". You can see how it probably developed, but what does that change?

I don't think the tradition would make the separation. It may be that the writer invented stuff, but there is no need. If he was merely handing the tradition as he received it forward, then there is no reason to suspect that he didn't believe all of it. This is why the separation that you make, though meaningful to us, isn't to the tradition which, like the blob, absorbs what gets in its way. It could be based on nothing directly real at all. How would we know?

I'd be happy for a clearer way ahead. I can't see one. Yet it doesn't offer anyone else any solace.

That doesn't stop the symbol from reflecting, or even being, reality. And if this isn't true, it doesn't stop a redactor from unwittingly thinking it was. Adam's name is derived from "adamah", meaning earth, just as he was made from earth. As symbolic as it gets, but as we know lots of fundies believe it's true. How something enters the tradition is not relevant to the bearers who believe it is true.

And to Mark Jesus was real (and he may have been). What is the difference in the writing process?


spin

Solo

Paul (or the interpolator) however talks about "resurrection from the dead" whereas the context of Hosea is the Lord's healing what "he has torn" (6:1). It fits more with the idea of the Lord "raising up" the sick (or the depressed), figuring e.g. in the Thanksgiving hymns of the Teacher at Qumran, e.g.:

I Thank Thee, O Lord, for Thou hast redeemed my soul from the Pit, and from the hell of Abaddon,
Thou hast raised me up to everlasting height. (1QH 5, Geza Vermes translation)

Jiri

aa5874

This is baseless speculation and most likely to be false. Credibilty was always relevant in antiquity just as it is today.

A false claim made 2000 years ago about an event, like the words of the so-called young man in the long white garment at the tomb in gMark 16.6, where this man declared, "He (Jesus) is not here, he is risen", would be always regarded as false by any audience in any century, once no such words or event ever happened.

Credibilty always matters whether you believe in ghosts, angels, devils or gods, even in antiquity and today.

Ted Hoffman

Alright spin. I am done. I dont think I can make any useful contribution on this thread. Do you think Andrew's proposal solves the problem?