rodahi

Some scholars think a historical Heracles may have existed; however, I know of no serious scholar who thinks the myths depict a human.

rodahi

I have never stated that Mark's Jesus is "bad". I think he is a character who has both negative and positive qualities, with the negative outweighing the positive. Jesus is generally presented as fully human. Yes, he could be a fictional character, and I cannot prove that he existed (Nor do I wish to). BUT, just because he could be a fictional character, it does not follow that he definitely was.

Further, in Mark's narrative, there is no fairy tale virgin birth at the beginning and no fairy tale resurrection appearances at the end. Very little of this narrative should provoke incredulity.

If the story is about a human being and is generally believable, why do you think it is a work of fiction?

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
If the story is about a human being and is generally believable, why do you think it is a work of fiction?
1. Are you asserting that we should only rely on Marks gospel and disregard what other evangelists are saying about Jesus?
2. Its still fiction because it talks of miracles (healing the sick) and resurrection, which lacks naturalistic plausibility.
3. Not every story about a human being is history. Is Robin Hood's story about a real person?

rodahi

1. I think that IF (notice that it is a big "if") any one of the four narratives contains historical information about Jesus, it would be the oldest--and that would be the anonymous narrative attributed to Mark.

2. There are many non-fictional accounts of people participating in and believing in magical acts. As I said earlier, Mark does not contain resurrection appearances. Only a relatively small portion of the narrative contains incredible material.

3. I don't know if the adventures of Robin Hood are about a historical person or not. Furthermore, I don't know if Mark's narrative is about a historical person or not. One thing is certain, though: Robin Hood is depicted as dashing and daring, brave and bold, and loved by almost everyone he meets. He is heroic; Jesus is not. If I had to have one or the other as a neighbor, it would be Robin.

Agnos1

Hi, Intensity. I've been following this thread a bit as it relates to a discussion I've been having with a rather articulate theist on another board. His take on the "James" passage in Josephus' Antiquities is rather unique and obvious. How would you address this statement?:

///And don't you think Josephus'referring to James being the brother of Jesus had an historical relevance because James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem...the same church that now proclaimed Jesus as being "the so-called Christ"? The same church that Ananus saw as an offense because an actual "Christ" was being proclaim by it. To the Jew, that's blasphemy, worthy of, guess what...stoning.

Doesn't a mention of Jesus being the so-called Christ provide a reason for the actions Ananus took against James?///

The relevance here, is that Doherty and others have said the James paragraph is about Ananus, barely about James, and not about Jesus at all, therefore the Jesus references are interpolations. My theist "friend," seems to show the relationships (all of them) as important and therefore the mention of Jesus makes sense, and however crude the writing, is in context.

Please, you or anyone on this board enlighten me as I could use the ammo!

Thanks,
Ag

Vorkosigan

Please, you or anyone on this board enlighten me as I could use the ammo!

Well let's see. The passage is here:
<a href="http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html" target="_blank">http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html</a>

Several points

(1) This is from Antiquities. Josephus already knows of the existence of Christians, he mentions them in the disputed passage about Jesus elsewhere. So if the problem is Christianity, why is it not directly mentioned here? Instead, there is a vague comment about law-breakers.

(2) Several early Christian writers I've heard, say that Josephus said James' death was the reason Jerusalem was destroyed, so this passage may have been worked over somehow.

(3) The passage says that the event was considered unfair by other Jews. Why should they consider it unfair that a blasphemer was stoned? Perhaps James was stoned for some other reason, and not being a Christian.

(4) The "brother of christ" is considered an interpolation in some circles. Take it out and there is no reason at all to connect this James with any Xtians.

(5) James is stoned with companions. Is this how James' death is pictured in other writings about his death? As I recall, he dies alone in most of them.

The absence of direct evidence tends to count against your friend's interpretation. I'd like some other opinions here, though.

Vorkosigan

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Agnos1

Thanks, Vorkosigan. Honestly, your interpretation sounds plausible but not convincing to me. Would love to hear some more either from you or others on this, because as I've told my "theist" friend, it is the one strand of the rope he's clinging to in his effort to maintain a belief in a physical Jesus. Convincingly debunking it would "win the argument" (at least re: Josephus). Right now he maintains that there's no reason not to read this paragraph at "face value."

Evidence that this is not the same James would be helpful.

Evidence that Paul's Letters conflict with the central argument for Josephus' authenticity would be very nice.

Evidence that Josephus would divulge more about the Xtian issue (his being Jewish) and that it's not appropriate his mentioning of the Jesus connection only in passing would be extremely helpful.

One thing he stated was that I (and by extrapolation You Guys/Gals) are putting 21st Century thinking into 2,000 yr-old shoes. If Jesus and the 1st Century church were a minor heretical cult, then we'd expect minimal exposition on them.

Ted Hoffman

Agnos1
I think Vorkosigan provided a good response.
But let me give it a shot too:
And don't you think Josephus'referring to James being the brother of Jesus had an historical relevance because James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem...the same church that now proclaimed Jesus as being "the so-called Christ"? The same church that Ananus saw as an offense because an actual "Christ" was being proclaim by it. To the Jew, that's blasphemy, worthy of, guess what...stoning.

Doesn't a mention of Jesus being the so-called Christ provide a reason for the actions Ananus took against James?
Some other reasons to doubt the authenticity of James being Jesus' brother.
1. James never refers to Jesus as his brother in the epistle of James.
2. The use of the word brother in the NT is not used to mean Blood brother.
3. There James in NT is killed by Herod so it cannot be the same James in Josephus.
4. Josephus did not know enough about James to point out that he was the brother of Jesus.
5. The disjointed structure of the sentence is evidence of tampering.

You can get Dohertys complete argument concerning this issue under feedback.
You also don't have to seek facts that your friends finds appealing. He has to refute each point you raise, otherwise he will just wave away each argument. Put him to task.

We expect you to provide his refutations merely telling us that he was not happy with the arguments will NOT do.

If Jesus and the 1st Century church were a minor heretical cult, then we'd expect minimal exposition on them.
What makes him think it was a minor cult? raising people from the dead and healing lepers, turning water into wine, whipping money changers out of the temple, making tombs open and the dead walk in the streets, and walking around with a 12 man army and getting the Romans to crucify him and the Jews to want him dead and feeding thousands with some fish and loaves?
Minor cult? Please! Which pericope is he using and why should we choose that pericope over other pericopes?

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
1. I think that IF (notice that it is a big "if") any one of the four narratives contains historical information about Jesus, it would be the oldest--and that would be the anonymous narrative attributed to Mark.

You are right about Mark being probably the oldest among the four Gospels. But as Vorkosigan has argued before, even the oldest fiction IS still fiction. Age does not transform fiction to truth. Mark could not have been an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine (as Papias asserted by saying Mark was Peters interpreter/companion), or at least someone who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism and Palestine because of all the silly errors and dubious characters in Mark. He never acknowledges Peters authority, provides suprfluous and unnecessary explanation about Jewish features etc.
His " Gentile attitude" towards the OT, his ignorance about; the passover, Jewish customs, when passover started, OT Prophets and a host of other issues make Mark unreliable as a source about Christs life. Steven Carr in Were the Gospels written by Eyewitnesses? covers the dubious nature of Mark if you are interested.

2. There are many non-fictional accounts of people participating in and believing in magical acts. As I said earlier, Mark does not contain resurrection appearances. Only a relatively small portion of the narrative contains incredible material.
Special pleading Rodahi, special pleading is written all over your statement.
Why would he put just a little incredible material? for poetic beauty?
Do we believe the rest of Marks Gospel because its credible?
You know, you remind me of the girl who got pregnant, then when her outraged parents confronted her, she said she was just a little pregnant.

3. I don't know if the adventures of Robin Hood are about a historical person or not. Furthermore, I don't know if Mark's narrative is about a historical person or not.
Well, you dont have to DONT KNOW anymore. Marks narrative is just a case of bad fiction. Maybe he was so busy fitting in Iliad and Oddysey in his "version" to notice that Jesus was supposed to be a honourable man befitting Godly status.

In any case Matthew and Luke tried their best to cover up the private parts of the Gospels that Mark had exposed. That should tell you something: they just wanted a story. A good story. Not THE story, OR His-tory. Maybe they had no time to carefully analyze them for implications, verisimilitude, embarrasment criterion, multiple attestation, redaction etc.

rodahi

Rodahi
1. I think that IF (notice that it is a big "if") any one of the four narratives contains historical information about Jesus, it would be the oldest--and that would be the anonymous narrative attributed to Mark.


Intensity: You are right about Mark being probably the oldest among the four Gospels. But as Vorkosigan has argued before, even the oldest fiction IS still fiction. Age does not transform fiction to truth.

Your assertion that the narrative is fiction does not make it so. Maybe it is. Perhaps it contains both fictional and non-fictional elements.

Intensity: Mark could not have been an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine (as Papias asserted by saying Mark was Peters interpreter/companion), or at least someone who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism and Palestine because of all the silly errors and dubious characters in Mark. He never acknowledges Peters authority, provides suprfluous and unnecessary explanation about Jewish features etc.
His " Gentile attitude" towards the OT, his ignorance about; the passover, Jewish customs, when passover started, OT Prophets and a host of other issues make Mark unreliable as a source about Christs life. Steven Carr in Were the Gospels written by Eyewitnesses? covers the dubious nature of Mark if you are interested.

I have never stated that I think the writer of Mark's narrative is an eyewitness. Nor have I stated that the narrative is non-fiction. I think it is very possible that it contains both fictional and non-fictional material. As I have stated, I see no good reason for a writer to CREATE a fictional heroic character and then give him many negative qualities. (BTW, have you read the narrative attributed to Mark? You suggested earlier that the writer mentioned Jesus "sweating blood," "washing the disciples feet," and "turning the other cheek." The writer includes none of those.)

rodahi: 2. There are many non-fictional accounts of people participating in and believing in magical acts. As I said earlier, Mark does not contain resurrection appearances. Only a relatively small portion of the narrative contains incredible material.

Intensity: Special pleading Rodahi, special pleading is written all over your statement.
Why would he put just a little incredible material? for poetic beauty?
Do we believe the rest of Marks Gospel because its credible?
You know, you remind me of the girl who got pregnant, then when her outraged parents confronted her, she said she was just a little pregnant.

I included this statement in response to something you said previously: "On one part, he was to be son of man. OTOH he was the son of God (resurrecting, healing the sick, calming storms, etc.)." You seem to have missed my point. If the writer had wished to CREATE a god or son of a god, why would he have created a very human character who has numerous negative qualities? (I hope you didn't mean to say that I remind you of a pregnant girl. I assure you that I am neither female nor pregnant. Perhaps you meant to say that my statements reminded you of a particular story. Either way, your story is an example of a false analogy.)

rodahi: 3. I don't know if the adventures of Robin Hood are about a historical person or not. Furthermore, I don't know if Mark's narrative is about a historical person or not.

Intensity: Well, you dont have to DONT KNOW anymore.

Like I said, I don't know if Mark's narrative is about a historical person or not.


Intensity: Marks narrative is just a case of bad fiction.

Assertions prove nothing.

Intensity: Maybe he was so busy fitting in Iliad and Oddysey in his "version" to notice that Jesus was supposed to be a honourable man befitting Godly status.

True. Of couse, OTOH he may have been describing a historical person's activities. There is no way of knowing for sure.

Intensity: In any case Matthew and Luke tried their best to cover up the private parts of the Gospels that Mark had exposed.

I agree! BUT, just because those writers embellished, modified, edited, altered, etc. the older narrative--it does not follow that Mark's narrative is completely fictional.


Intensity: That should tell you something: they just wanted a story. A good story. Not THE story, OR His-tory.

Again, I agree! But that fact does not prove that Mark created a fictional character.


Intensity: Maybe they had no time to carefully analyze them for implications, verisimilitude, embarrasment criterion, multiple attestation, redaction etc.

I have no idea who "Matthew" or "Luke" were. Nor do I know how much time they had to write. Further, I have no idea how analytical they were. If I were to say, that would be nothing more than speculation.