rodahi

Steven, I did not write that statement. Please, if you are going to accuse me of logical fallacy, use one of MY quotes.

Steven Carr

Sorry about the wrong attribution. Perhaps Layman can get a statement somewhere by Michael Grant saying that he is an atheist.

rodahi

IntenSity: Rodahi,
I have stated which parts I do not believe in the bible. You have partly agreed with me that they are indeed unbeleivable or fictitious. How do we tell a work of fiction, by demonstrating that there are fictitious elements in the work. Which I have done. My argument is, whether or not there was a poor peasant who performed magic in ancient Palestine called Jesus, would be a pure coincidence. He is NOT the character Mark is talking about. The Gospel of Mark is NOT a historical account.

You have failed to grasp what I have said numerous times. I THINK it possible that the anonymous narrative attributed to someone named Mark contains both non-historical and historical material. I think this is true of virtually all ancient writings which scholars deem "historical." Further, I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there in NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero. The writer uses poor Greek, poor grammar, and lacks the literary skill of many writers of his day. He does not SEEM to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is. Jesus COULD be a mythical character. BUT, I think it very possible that he is not.

Vorkosigan

Further, I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there in NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero. The writer uses poor Greek, poor grammar, and lacks the literary skill of many writers of his day. He does not SEEM to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is. Jesus COULD be a mythical character. BUT, I think it very possible that he is not.

Rodahi, I think this argument is weak. You are confusing Mark's lack of presentation skills in Greek with a lack of creativity. Writing is the hardest second-language activity, as you well know from your experience with hispanic students in your community. Would you argue that the Hispanic students you have who struggle to express themselves in English are therefore uncreative and incapable of feats of high imagination? I doubt it.

Mark is facing the multiple problems of creating stories in a region he knows little about, from scratch and some OT writings, some things he'd heard, and some legends, making a passable story that must satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends. The snarky peasant magician represents a series of literary compromises, not reality.

Vorkosigan

rodahi

IntenSity: I have then asked you why you believe. You have not yet responded.

I don't BELIEVE anything about Jesus. I THINK it possible that he existed.

IntenSity: The only response I can envisage you giving is: "I beleive because it doesnt make sense" - because you keep saying you dont see why....
But I will wait for your response.

In all of your postings, you have succeeded ONLY in showing that it is POSSIBLE that the writer of Mark created a fictional character. You have ignored the fact that it is POSSIBLE that the writer wrote about a historical figure, with embellishment. Writers before and after "Mark" have written what we acknowledge as history, with embellishment. Read virtually any ancient "historian" and you will find varyig amounts of incredible material and embellishments. I do not think they all wrote works of fiction merely because they contain superstitious elements or fake speeches, etc.

I cannot prove that Mark wrote about a historical personage, nor do I wish to. I cannot prove that Mark created a mythical character in a work of fiction, nor do I wish to.

In my opinion, the most reasonable approach is to simply state up front "I think it possible that Jesus existed because..." or, conversely, "I think it possible that Jesus is a mythical character because..." Secular scholars who bring a scientific approach to this issue rarely make absolute statements such as "Jesus existed, period" or "Jesus is a myth, period".

rodahi

rodahi: Further, I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there is NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero. The writer uses poor Greek, poor grammar, and lacks the literary skill of many writers of his day. He does not SEEM to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is. Jesus COULD be a mythical character. BUT, I think it very possible that he is not.

V: Rodahi, I think this argument is weak. You are confusing Mark's lack of presentation skills in Greek with a lack of creativity.

Nope. No confusion here. I think that good fiction requires more than an ability to use one's creative imagination. Also, in Mark's narrative we see a very human protagonist who possesses numerous negative characteristics. Why CREATE a hero who does the things Jesus does?

I find it unreasonable to attribute to the writer the intellectual sophistication and literary ability to CREATE out of thin air a fictional character of Jesus' complexity.

V: Writing is the hardest second-language activity, as you well know from your experience with hispanic students in your community. Would you argue that the Hispanic students you have who struggle to express themselves in English are therefore uncreative and incapable of feats of high imagination? I doubt it.

I don't think any of my students are capable of creating a fictional character such as Jesus. However, it would be easy for them to recount stories they may have heard about someone like Jesus.

V: Mark is facing the multiple problems of creating stories in a region he knows little about, from scratch and some OT writings, some things he'd heard, and some legends, making a passable story that must satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends.

I do not automatically presume that the writer of Mark created a story out of thin air. I agree that it is possible. I just don't think it is probable. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends."

V: The snarky peasant magician represents a series of literary compromises, not reality.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

aikido7

The gospels are a dense layering of remembered history infused with a cumulative and evolving cultural mythology.

If one side insists only on a literal reading of the texts (characteristic of both fundamentalism and secular rationalism) and the other side trumpets a mythological and metaphoric interpretation, then communication and understanding between the two sides will get nowhere.

In Aesop's Fables, is it true that animals actually talked in ancient Greece? Or did they behave like animals today but some crazy Greek writer actually believed that they did? And what was the point of such stories?

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi,
As you have said, you dont care one way or the other about whether or NOT there existed a historical Jesus, so maybe you dont feel any "commitment" in this subject. If that is the case, I would suggest you bow out of the discussion (maybe there are interested parties waiting to swarm in once you are done).
But Vorkosigan has made it clear that its fallacious for you to conflate a persons' writing skills and creativity. If that was your basis for asserting existence of a HJ behind Marks narrative, then I think you would be better off revising it.

I THINK it possible that the anonymous narrative attributed to someone named Mark contains both non-historical and historical material
This statement is barren because as far as possible things go, anything is possible.

Your last straw is this:
I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there in NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero.
Let me address this:
"Negative portrait" means what?
I can conjecture that you are referring to Jesus' personality. Why would the people (including Mark)living then be interested in Jesus' personality? What would make his personality significant to them? You have yourself admitted they were very gullible and what made him popular was his "performances", NOT his personality. In fact, Jesus is the one who taught them about personality. Remember "good fiction" is very subjective.

According to Marks Gospel,its clear that Jesus was loved by many (especially the poor) and from the start, Jesus was a harbinger of peace - he was considered by some to have been the messiah.

He was evidently a wise man who could teach in parables like the Parable of the Sower and Soils in Mark 4.

In Mark 3, he demonstrated that it was important to do good than "observe" the sabbath. This was a real teacher! That sabbath was made for man and not man for sabbath.

In Mark 4, he taught that brotherhood went beyond blood relations. Isnt this a good teaching?

And the parable of mustard seed? A stroke of genius! Is that a negative portrait?

As Mark 1:8 has John the Baptist saying:
This meant Jesus would usher in a new era of great spirituality. Is this a negative introduction?

And GOD Himself proclaimed that Jesus was HIS son.
In Mark 1:11. And NOT just his son, but with whom he God is pleased. Is this negative? The heavens opened. Was that a commonplace occurence?

Mark 1:17 epitomizes Jesus' great magnetism and charisma. When he asked Simon and Andrew to follow him so that he could make them fishes of men, it says Why? What does that tell us about how they perceived Jesus? as a bad person?

In Mark 1:22, when he went to Capernaum and started preaching, it says Is this a negative attribute? Someone who had the gift of teaching?

Then he exorcises a demon in Mark 1:27 and Mark writes Awe, admiration, respect. Is this what you are calling negative?

Mark 1: 34 speaks of Jesus going to a healing and exorcising spree and it says Is this what you call negative portrait?

Mark 1: 39 says Heh, heh, your "nobody" went all over Galilee leaving exorcised demons in his wake.
Is this negative?

In Mark 1:41 Aaah, your "negative portrait" Jesus can be moved by compassion. He has his heart in the right place.
Is that negative?

Mark 1:45 says Aah, your "nobody" could NOT go anywhere without people flocking his presence.

And later, he even calmed fierce storms, cursed trees and rose from the dead. And the transfiguration with Moses and Elijah? Up there with men of great courage and faith. Was that a negative portrait?

Rodahi, is this what you call a negative portrait? My take on it is :
(1) if there was a negative side of Jesus, it was overwhelmingly overshadowed by the great deeds of Jesus, teachings and the compassion Jesus had.
(2) The people then were not very uptight about personality: more on deeds and status (messiah etc) and what they had at stake. Once your deeds were great and you could feed like 5000 hungry chaps, calm storms and raise people from the dead, who the hell would give a rats tit about your personality? It was such that if Jesus urinated in public, urinating in public would be important.

Did you watch A Man of All Seasons? It had this king who was suffering from syphilis, when he laughed, all his followers would laugh. Its human nature. Great men are always right, maybe thats why Mark, and his readers did NOT pause to focus on Jesus' personality.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Steven Carr

I wonder if Joseph Smith could have written such a complicated work as the Book of Mormon.

After all, reading it leads to the conclusion that he was not a very skilful writer.