bagong

I'm for HJ.

"Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a favorite quote on these boards, and I certainly feel it applies in this case.

To me, there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that in early 1st century CE Galilee, there was a man named Yeshua who preached the "Kingdom of God is at hand!", and was executed by the Roman administration. In fact, such prophets were probably a dime a dozen during that particularly traumatic period of Jewish history.

Therefore, my criteria for sufficient evidence are quite low. As already mentioned, the inclusion of some details in the Jesus story that could be considered embarassing or harmful to his Messiahnic credentials* seems reason enough to believe that they are based on fact.

*The most important, IMO, being the crucifiction itself. Yes, there are some precedents of god-men "conquering death", but the whole thing seems so far removed from Jewish Messiahnic tradition and sensibilities (whatever apologists might say about OT "prophecy") that I find it extremely difficult to believe that a group of Jewish mystics would ascribe ignominious death by execution to their Messiah unless they had to.

Vinnie

And your proof of this is what? Do you even kno how these "Bedrock facts" are ascertained?

Vinnie

Vinnie

The whole thing does seem removed from Jewish Messianic sensibilities but we must remember that our reconstruction of first-century Jewish sensibilities is only partial. So we must be modest. It does seem hard to envision Jews in the thirties and forties inventing a crucified Messiah.

The crucifixion is attested by first stratum material, embarrassment, multiple attestation and possibly the discontinuity criterion which is similar to the embarrassment one here. Needless to say, no serious scholar doubts crucifixion.

Vinnie

luvluv

Vinnie:

I'm a rookie on this subject. Is this a miracle list from Paul? Where is it in the NT?

Vinnie

Its not found in the Pauline corpus. Its found embedded in GJohn and GMark. It pre-dates 70 ad.

Vinnie

luvluv

Oookay. And what is GJohn and GMark?

Peter Kirby

The fourth and second gospels in the New Testament: the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark.

Vinnie should be aware that Earl Doherty agrees with those who see the Gospel of John as dependent on the Gospel of Mark. This is defended, for example, by Thomas L. Brodie in The Quest for the Origin of John's Gospel: A Source-Oriented Approach.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

How can you date the miracle list to any time before 70 AD? You can't reliably date either GMark or GJohn to before 70. What other sources are there (other than pure speculation)?

Vinnie

Mark dates to ca 70 ad and the author of GMark used this list. Logic dictates, then, that the source pre-dates 70 ad (aka the date of the composition of Mark's Gospel). Its not that complex so I don't see what the problem is? I'd draw a diagram but I'm out of crayons.

Vinnie

Toto

Some scholars date Mark as late as 140 CE, or later. 70 is just a compromise consensus date, or the earliest date that can be justified.

You still can't show that Mark did not invent this list, or use a list that had been invented that same year, unless you have some other evidence or arguments.