spamandham

Between the two of us, you're the only one who thinks you made a point.

From my perspective, you did nothing but construct a strawman of little skill or imagination, which you proceeded to tear down.

spamandham

{emphasis mine}

Reading through the exchange, I'm having a hard time seeing anywhere that Neil claimed the stories contained no accurate history. I must have missed it I'm sure, as it would out of character for you to intentionally attempt to misrepresent someone else's position for them. :wave:

spin

Would you like to quantify which bits you'd like to keep for now? I think it's just as simplistic to do what apologists do with the TF, excising the more offensive bits and keeping the rest. This is another fly-specks on the dropped buttered bread story.

Would you keep the baptism with its voice from heaven?

Would you keep the temptation?

What about the man with the unclean spirit in Capernaum?

Would you keep the healings at Simon's house?

Perhaps the cure of the leper?

If not we've just removed most of chapter 1 of Mark. We could go on with the paralytic, and save most of chapter 2. The man with the withered hand hopefully goes along with the unclean spirits, but what about the authority over demons? Chapter four has nothing happening (just some parables) until the storm is stilled (slash). Chapter 5 gives us the Gadarene demoniac, a girl restored to life and and a woman healed, so the whole chapter goes. Let's keep the first half of chapter six (cos there's nothing obviously wrong), but chop the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on water and the healing of the sick at Gennesaret.

Hell, ya know, we've slashed and burnt a lot of Mark so far and we've lots more to hack out.

Do you think that the scene in the garden is kosher in which Jesus prays and we have report of it though nobody was there to record it? Do you find Peter's threefold denial before the cock crows veracious? What about the scene in which Jesus is brought before the high priesthood for his Jewish trial at night, when we read in the Mishna that the court didn't meet at night? What about the dramatic scene before Pilate, where the Roman prefect, ie a non-patrician soldier, Pilate speaks directly to the crowd and they are able to understand and respond. Perhaps the authors left out the actions of the translators.

You know that I don't buy the fiction approach to this literature, but there are other reasons for non-history, so I don't know how you can actually keep any of it when most of it is clearly questionable. Would you be as arbitrary as our friends who want to save bits of the TF? This bit isn't obviously questionable so we'll keep it...

We've got lots of proof for active growth of Jesus tradition not based on reality at least in the eyes of most of us here. The burden of proof strongly rests on the shoulders of anyone who wants to say something in the text is veracious.


spin

aa5874

I do not consider the NT to contain any accurate history, it contains mis-leading and distorted "history" and it appears to be deliberate.

What is accurate about the three Magis visiting Herod?
What is accurate about the killing of the innocents?
What is accurate about Jesus being baptised by John the Baptist?
What is accurate about Pilate and the trial of Jesus?

The authors of the NT used historical figures, it would appear, to try to authenticate fiction.

It cannot be accurate history if I claimed Abraham Lincoln, former president of the USA, was crucified for blasphemy, was resurrected, ascended to heaven and was assisinated when he returned back to earth the second time. This is bogus history similar to NT history.

neilgodfrey

I should correct that statement and delete the "around 30's". For all anyone knows Mark might as well have thought Pilate was governor in the 60's or even the 130 c.e. Justin, after all, explained the historical context of Jesus (and most scholars seem to accept he read the canonical gospels too) as being in the time of King Herod and Pilate and before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the more words one writes the better our chances of learning what they really think: Justin also happened to think that all these characters ruled in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman conquest -- and he conflates the conquests of Pompey and Vespasian/Titus here.

For Justin then, Jesus was a contemporary of Herod and Pilate, and was crucified and resurrected in either 63 b.c.e. or 70 c.e. according to our calendars. So much for how much we can confidently affirm from a narrative's setting in the time of historical figures.

I have no idea of course if the author of Mark's gospel was under similar misconceptions. But the point is that it is so easy to bring modern assumptions and knowledge into an ancient text that may not be warranted.

Solitary Man

I trust you can do the same for any other piece of literature, right?

neilgodfrey

I am wondering what other pieces of literature you might have in mind, specifically. "Any" covers a lot so just one or two examples should be easy.

neilgodfrey

I agree 100%. I must confess that my concession to '"some" accurate history' is the result of being worn down with debates over this sort of thing with others on other websites which I try to avoid as a rule -- though I have found myself weakening and caught up again here for the moment. By '"some" accurate history' I really mean "historical setting", not "history" as such.

aa5874

You may need a little rest.

The NT appears to be fictional settings using recognised names and places.

neilgodfrey

Jerusalem is a fictional setting??? I think you're right. I do need a rest from this nonsense.