Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-24-2011, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are fundamental ERRORS about gMark in the lecture.

That explains why you lecture here and he lectures at Yale.

You mean YALE lecturers are INERRANT?

Toto · 07-24-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

New Testament History and Literature with Dale B. Martin

This course provides a historical study of the origins of Christianity by analyzing the literature of the earliest Christian movements in historical context, concentrating on the New Testament. Although theological themes will occupy much of our attention, the course does not attempt a theological appropriation of the New Testament as scripture. Rather, the importance of the New Testament and other early Christian documents as ancient literature and as sources for historical study will be emphasized. A central organizing theme of the course will focus on the differences within early Christianity (-ies).

What are the fundamental ERRORS, aa5874?

JoeWallack · 07-24-2011, 09:22 AM

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

To aid in the hunt, here is a map of 1st century Israel:

What is ReMarkable here is that the Jordan River is either in the extreme north east corner of Judea or north of Judea. Note the following odd/strange/macabre geographical implications from "Mark's" presentation:

1) "baptized in the wilderness"

The Jordan was the major river in the area and was a magnet for settlements. Having a Jordan River setting in the wilderness? Doesn't really work.

2) "went out unto him all the country of Judaea,"

"All" is an exaggeration of course and implies the setting was accessible and more likely central than peripheral.

All Jordan River settings are more accessible to Perea and Samaria as a whole than Judea. Their omission also implies a location central to Judea.

3) "all they of Jerusalem"

If you did not already know that Jerusalem was in Judea, this would imply that Jerusalem was not.

I have never seen the above listed in an inventory of "Mark's" geographical errors but for the reasons above, I think the implications from "Mark's" presentation, that the Baptism setting was relatively central to Judea, would be a geographical error.

Whether the author was aware of the geographical issues is a separate question. Here there is a reasonable explanation for the presentation. At the beginning of the story "Mark" has everyone go to the messenger and at the ending "Mark" has no one go to the messenger. This is Style. An ironic, contrasting balance. Fuel for my Legendary Thread:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction In The Original Gospel

The thing to look for here is consistency. Does "Mark" consistently have an unreasonable geographical relationship combined with a reasonable stylistic explanation for the presentation.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 07-30-2011, 03:18 PM

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1

Quote:

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from of Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

Nazareth of Galilee? Was it? The only agreement on 1st century Nazareth of Galilee seems to be that there were tombs there. This makes sense from a Style standpoint, Jesus comes from the Tomb at the beginning and end. But if you read "Mark" unstylishly, was there a likely Nazareth place to come from in Galilee at the time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth#cite_note-24

Nazareth

Quote:

(a) The Protevangelium of James (50 AD. See New Testament Apocrypha, ed. W. Schneemelcher, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, vol. 1, p. 421 ff.) was an immensely popular text in the early Christian centuries. In it, Jesus' family lives in Bethlehem of Judea (PrJ 8.3; 17:1) and all events take place in and around the southern town. PrJ does not once mention Galilee, nor "Nazareth"

JW:
"The Protevangelium of James" is an apologetic work that tries to reconcile the infancy narratives of "Matthew" and "Luke". "Nazareth" is never mentioned. Perhaps because the author was not aware of any Nazareth in Galilee.

Quote:

(b) The earliest reference to Nazareth outside the Christian gospels, by Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 200 AD), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.”

JW:

http://christianbookshelf.org/africa..._but_as_up.htm

Quote:

A few, however, of the studious, having private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting at them in some other way from the archives, pride themselves in preserving the memory of their noble descent; and among these happen to be those already mentioned, called desposyni, [1053] on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. And these coming from Nazara and Cochaba, Judean villages, to other parts of the country, set forth the above-named genealogy [1054] as accurately as possible from the Book of Days. [1

JW:
So first Patristic reference is Judea.

Quote:

(c) A fourth century work known as the History of Joseph the Carpenter knows a southern location for Nazareth. It locates "Nazareth," the home of Joseph, within walking distance of the Jerusalem Temple.

JW:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm

Quote:

12. It came to pass, after these things, that the death of that old man, the pious Joseph, and his departure from this world, were approaching, as happens to other men who owe their origin to this earth. And as his body was verging on dissolution, an angel of the Lord informed him that his death was now close at hand. Therefore fear and great perplexity came upon him. So he rose up and went to Jerusalem; and going into the temple of the Lord, he poured out his prayers there before the sanctuary, and said:

JW:
The text explicitly says that Nazareth was in Galilee so the above seems weak evidence that the author intended Joseph's home of Nazareth at the time to be within the walking distance of a sick old man to the Temple. "he rose up and went to Jerusalem" could just be a stylish way to say Joseph journeyed to the Temple. The Bible also says that some guy tied his ass to a tree and than walked 3 miles.

On the other hand we have the, the, what was that evidence again that there was really a 1st century Nazareth in Galilee worth mentioning AA?

It is hard, awfully hard, to try and demonstrate a negative, that there was no Nazareth in Galilee in the 1st century that would have been used as a reference, but there also does not seem to be much positive evidence. This one may be neutral.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 08-05-2011, 08:38 AM

JW:
Let's call Justin Martyr to the witness stand regarding the question of whether there was a 1st century Nazareth in Galilee.

Prosecuting Attorney:
Your honor, Justin Martyr believes that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to conquer Death by dying and thereby end His own eternal Law. Therefore, he can not be used as an Expert Witness.

Judge:
Agreed.

JW:
Understood. Anyway, Super Skeptic Neil Godfree has created a useful summary of parallels between the writings of Justin and early Christian writings here:

Justin Martyr's Gospel Narrative compared with the gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, James and Peter

Don't leave homily without it. Justin's time period, post mid-second century, seems to be a harmonization time for orthodox Christianity. Justin's Nazareth related harmony is here:

CHAPTER LXXVIII -- HE PROVES THAT THIS PROPHECY HARMONIZES WITH CHRIST ALONE, FROM WHAT IS AFTERWARDS WRITTEN.

Quote:

Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up[1] from Nazareth, where he lived[2], to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a[3].

[1] "he went up" - I think this would normally mean either heading north in Israel or going to the relatively big city. Seems to be an implication of a Nazareth in Judea. Also note that Justin never says Nazareth is in Galilee.

[2] "from Nazareth, where he lived" - Justin explicitly says Joseph's home was Nazareth.

[3] "return into Jud a" - The implication is that the return is specifically to Joseph's home Nazareth, which is in Judea. It could just refer though to the general return from Egypt to Israel which would start in Judea.

I take Justin here as evidence against a 1st century Nazareth village in Galilee, weak evidence, but evidence.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

andrewcriddle · 08-06-2011, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

................................................
CHAPTER LXXVIII -- HE PROVES THAT THIS PROPHECY HARMONIZES WITH CHRIST ALONE, FROM WHAT IS AFTERWARDS WRITTEN.

Quote:

Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up[1] from Nazareth, where he lived[2], to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a[3].

.................................................. .
[3] "return into Jud a" - The implication is that the return is specifically to Joseph's home Nazareth, which is in Judea. It could just refer though to the general return from Egypt to Israel which would start in Judea.

This may be an interpretation of Matthew 2:19-23

Quote:

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child's life are dead.” And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

IE the instruction to return to Israel is initially regarded as a command to return to Judea, where Jesus was born, but on learning about Archelaus Joseph goes to Nazareth instead.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-06-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...... the instruction to return to Israel is initially regarded as a command to return to Judea, where Jesus was born, but on learning about Archelaus Joseph goes to Nazareth instead.

Andrew Criddle

As I have said before the author of gMark did NOT claim that Nazareth was a CITY.

We are almost certain that there was NO CITY of Nazareth as stated by the unknown author of gMatthew and gLuke.

There has been NO archaeological evidence of a CITY called Nazareth in the 1st century.

Mt 2:23 -

Quote:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Lu 1:26 -

Quote:

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth....

There is also something uniquely common in gMatthew 2.23 and gLuke 1.26, both passages are COMPLETE fiction.

There was NO angel and No prophecy.

JoeWallack · 01-01-2012, 10:37 AM

JW:
Moving along The Way(so to speak) our next potential geographical error in "Mark" is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

Quote:

35 And on that day, when even was come, he saith unto them, Let us go over unto the other side.

36 And leaving the multitude, they take him with them, even as he was, in the boat. And other boats were with him.

37 And there ariseth a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling.

38 And he himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion: and they awake him, and say unto him, Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?

39 And he awoke, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

40 And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful? have ye not yet faith?

41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

JW:
The potential error is whether or not "Mark" has presented the Sea of Galilee as a Sea. Per Wikipedia, the

Sea of Galilee is actually a lake and not a sea. A number of ancient authors also refer to it as a sea so "Mark's" use of "Sea of Galilee" can be limited to identification of location based on name and not necessarily intended to be a physical description. The issue is whether "Mark's" attached narrative communicates that this is technically a "Sea" as opposed to just a lake. The evidence that "Mark" intended to show a Sea here is:

1) Language:

Quote:

37 And there ariseth a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling.

The two Bible uses of the offending word for "waves" outside of the story in question refer to seas:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G2949&t=KJV

2) Known physical characteristics of the Sea of Galilee:

While there is no shortage of apologist claims of related threatening waves there also appears to be no physical documentation of threatening waves. There are Internet videos of storms on the Sea of Galilee but none that show significant waves.

3) Implication from name:

On an overall basis "Mark" is writing for an audience not familiar with Israeli geography so use of the name "Sea" would create an implication that it was physically a Sea.

4) Ancient observation:

Porphyry, as apparently preserved in the defenses of Christian critics, wrote:

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Adverse.html

Quote:

Now the fourth watch is the tenth hour of the night, after which three further hours are left. But those who relate the truth about that locality say that there is not a sea there, but a small lake coming from a river under the hill in the country of Galilee, beside the city of Tiberias; this is easy for small boats to sail across in not more than two hours, nor can it admit of either wave or storm. So Mark goes very wide of the truth when he very absurdly gives the fabulous record that, when nine hours of the night had passed, Jesus proceeded at the tenth, namely the fourth watch of the night, and found the disciples sailing on the pond. Then he calls it a sea, and not merely that, but a stormy sea, and a terribly angry one, causing them fear with the tossing of the waves. He does this in order that he may thereupon introduce Christ as working some mighty miracle in having caused a great and fearful storm to cease, and saved the disciples in their danger from the deep, and from the sea. From such childish records we know the Gospel to be a sort of cunningly woven curtain. Wherefore we investigate each point the more carefully

5) Likely overall fictional story:

Using Wallack's criteria to evaluate fiction:

Impossible

Impossible claims (in total) = The immediate point of the overall story is that Jesus has power over nature which is impossible.

Contradictions (impossible in part) = No clear contradictions here.

Improbable

Implausibility (in general) = Unlikely that Jesus would be asleep during a storm.

Contradictions (improbable in part) = No clear contradictions here.

Contrived

Parallels to non-historical sources = The Legendary Vorkosigan notes the parallels to the Jonah story = http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark04.html

Thematic motivation = Fits "Mark's" primary theme that the disciples fail Jesus by always reacting with Fear instead of Faith and thereby never understand/recognize him properly.

Necessity of tying to other stories = The Vorkmeister notes the repeating cycle of stories 4:35-6:34 verses 6:45-8:26.

Contrivance (other types) = The storm story of the bad/evil spirit destroying the peace of the disciples by creating Fear parallels to the connecting Sower story of the bad/evil spirit Satan destroying the peace of the disciples by creating Fear.

The resulting evidence of Fiction here is high so it is likely that all parts of "Mark's" story here are fiction and it is thereby a shorter distance to demonstrating it likely that "Mark" created a non-geographical description of the Sea of Galilee actually being a Sea.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller · 01-01-2012, 11:30 AM

But the Christians would likely have thought that the wind on the water was of supernatural origin. In other words, they don't think that the disciples happened to have been in a boat where a natural wind just happened to have made waves on the water but - according to the religious/spiritual mindset of that age and all ages - God made the waves in order to send a 'sign' to the disciples and the readers of the gospel (because of the evangelist setting the narrative down in words).

It's like meeting your best friend you haven't seen in years at the local Whole Foods just before your wedding which leads to you inviting him/her as your best man/maid of honor. According to the religious mindset God put that friend there in the store so that you could invite them to have a position of honor at the ceremony. The fact that the store is in Houston and the person lives in Hong Kong and had never been there before only strengthens the supernatural argument, not diminishes it.

According to the religious mindset God arranges all things even the most mundane but he reveals himself to us by doing the impossible, the improbable etc. The argument you are laying forward does not advance the case that Mark didn't know Palestinian geography. It just shows that he believed that God was active in the events of the year of Jesus's ministry.

JoeWallack · 02-04-2012, 09:29 AM

JW:
Moving along The Way(so to speak) our next potential geographical error in "Mark" is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_5

Quote:

5:1 And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.

2 And when he was come out of the boat, straightway there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit,

3 who had his dwelling in the tombs: and no man could any more bind him, no, not with a chain;

4 because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: and no man had strength to tame him.

5 And always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.

6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him;

7 and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not.

8 For he said unto him, Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man.

9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; for we are many.

10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

11 Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine feeding.

12 And they besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

13 And he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine: and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, [in number] about two thousand; and they were drowned in the sea.

14 And they that fed them fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had come to pass.

15 And they come to Jesus, and behold him that was possessed with demons sitting, clothed and in his right mind, [even] him that had the legion: and they were afraid.

16 And they that saw it declared unto them how it befell him that was possessed with demons, and concerning the swine.

17 And they began to beseech him to depart from their borders.

18 And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with demons besought him that he might be with him.

19 And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and [how] he had mercy on thee.

20 And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men marvelled.

JW:
The potential error is whether the known city of Gerasa ("Gerasenes") meets the physical requirements of the story. I have a detailed article on the subject at Mark 5:1 which I am finishing up which I think is already the best and most detailed article regarding the related question of geographical error.

Determination of error is a two step process. The first step is Textual Criticism, determining if "Gerasenes" is likely original. My article notes that every standard category of external evidence, Manuscript, Patristic and Authority, supports "Gerasenes" as likely original to "Mark".

Where I differ with Authority is that I think the internal evidence also supports "Gerasenes". Authority generally takes the issue in question, whether Gerasa fits the story, and because the answer is no, uses that as internal evidence that it is likely not original. The problem with this is that it assumes historical intent. I point out that the criteria for history score relatively low and the criteria for fiction score relatively high so there is no basis for assuming historical intent.

Specifically the criteria for fiction score high enough to not only maintain "Gerasenes" as a candidate for original even though it does not fit, but to go beyond and support it as likely original in the internal category. The general fiction criteria are high in the Impossible and especially Contrived, such as Chiasm, Emotion and Theme. The specific criteria of Names has a match between "Gerasa" and "Jairus" including their presentation (start of stories and lone identifying name).

The best potential defense is that "Mark" used "Gerasenes" in a directional sense (the Gerasene's side of the Sea). I look at this in the English and Greek and don't see this as much of a defense but I'll ask Dr. Carrier to look at the Greek.

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish (and I ask that Stephen Huller try not to connect it to Alexandria).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2012, 11:30 AM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But the Christians would likely have thought that the wind on the water was of supernatural origin. In other words, they don't think that the disciples happened to have been in a boat where a natural wind just happened to have made waves on the water but - according to the religious/spiritual mindset of that age and all ages - God made the waves in order to send a 'sign' to the disciples and the readers of the gospel (because of the evangelist setting the narrative down in words). It's like meeting your best friend you haven't seen in years at the local Whole Foods just before your wedding which leads to you inviting him/her as your best man/maid of honor. According to the religious mindset God put that friend there in the store so that you could invite them to have a position of honor at the ceremony. The fact that the store is in Houston and the person lives in Hong Kong and had never been there before only strengthens the supernatural argument, not diminishes it. According to the religious mindset God arranges all things even the most mundane but he reveals himself to us by doing the impossible, the improbable etc. The argument you are laying forward does not advance the case that Mark didn't know Palestinian geography. It just shows that he believed that God was active in the events of the year of Jesus's ministry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.