Adam

No one worthy of calling himself a critical scholar presupposes that all the other gospels had available to them the complete Gospel of Mark as we have it. Luke 4:23 and Mt. 13:55 are closer to each other than they are to Mark 6:3, so that does not support Mark 6:3 as the best reading.

You seem to know nothing of Jesus except what you read from third-hand cultural anthropology. You are less able to account for the Jesus presented in the gospels than the MJ people are.
How about citing some scholars who believe Jesus was illiterate? Or at least less literate than you?
Edited to add:
OK, Five Gospels by Funk p. 27 and Jesus (1994) by Crossan p. 24-26 seem to support you. No wonder the Jesus Seminar went so far wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

Umm ... there's Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (New York: Harper, 1996), 158; John D. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (San Fransisco: Harper, 1994), 25-26; Pieter F. Craffert and Pieter J. J. Botha, “Why Jesus Could Walk on the Sea but He Could not Read and Write,” Neotestamenica 39 (2005): 5-35.


For a review of the issue, see Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (Library of New Testament Studies) by Chris Keith who is interviewed about his book here:

http://newtestamentperspectives.blog...ith-chris.html

Jeffrey

Adam

Yeah, I just found that too. Anyone wants to know can get the book for $100.
You caught me even before my "Edited to add" acknowledging Funk and Crossan disagree with me.

Minimalist

Actually true but archaeological work in Sepphoris has shown it to be a Hellenistic town with Greco-Roman temples. Calling it "rural" may miss the point that the upper classes in Galilee could have been far more intellectually advanced than the religion-riddled theocracy which called the shots in Jerusalem.

When Josephus' army showed up at Sepphoris they told him to get lost and invited the Romans to send a garrison to protect them from the Jews. Seems as if there was a cultural divide there.

outhouse

Your not reading it correctly and then posting it in mistake bud.

Johnathon Reed actually states it was not a gentile Hellenistic city.

He also stated it only had a Hellenistic veneer, but underneath all that it was strickly Jewish.


The only person that calls it Hellenistic is Strange and Reed knows more then Strange here, since Reed was doing all the digging there..

For what its worth, knowing Antipas placed all his people to run the government, its my opinion that the city was definitely Hellenistic Judaism who took a pro Roman stance.

I never stated it was rural. It wasn't.

Nazareth would be rural.


I agree.

There was definitely a socioeconomic divide.

Not only that the NT lacks any mention of Jesus setting foot in it.



Its my take the divide was that of Hellenistic Judaism, and that of traditional Judaism/Hebrews.

outhouse

Your no authority on anything here to even attempt to poorly belittle someone with a different view then your own lost hobby horse not followed by anything less than your imagination.



Jesus social status and his literacy or lack of will not be settled anytime soon.

Apologetic scholars vie for a wealthier Jesus, and archeology has recently found Capernaum to be poor which would reflect the same social class as Nazareth, which to me is placing a nail in their coffin.

Galilee was poorer and Judah and looked down upon them.

To be a Jew during this period is also understudied to its wide diverse nature, and the multi cultural people that followed this religion in many different ways.

Jeffrey Gibson

He does??? And aren't you fudging things when you claim that not Gentile means not Hellenistic?

Source, please. Let's have some quotes and bibliographic data from Reed.


Is that so? Strange is the only person? Strange has not dug at Sephoris???

http://www.centuryone.org/sepphoris.html

http://wiki.scu.edu/live/wiki71/index.php/Sepphoris

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?


Jeffrey

Adam

Looks like outhouse knows something about this, enough to be dangerous, as they say. He doesn't cite sources because he doesn't remember them well enough to tell us. Edit

Jeffrey Gibson

How you know this is beyond me. I think it would be wise to keep your cheap shots to yourself.

Jeffrey

outhouse

I have no problem being shown errors. I did forget about Strange digging there.

I should have stated Johnathon Reeds work took current archeology deeper and is more current then Stranges work. he has done the most current digging

Ill find the exact sources from Reed, me and legion debated this about 5 ish months ago in depth, as I debated for a Hellenistic Sepphoris using Stranges models.

Then following Reeds work which shows a very Jewish Sepphoris and a lack of Gentiles by the absence of pig bones.

No it was just my poor choice of wording. That was not my intention.

Reed and another archeologist claims a lack of Hellenistic culture despite the veneer.

I think their mistaken myself about a lack of Hellenism. It looks look's a duck, and quacks like one. That leaves us with Hellenistic Judaism. Something I think Jesus would have been against

I once thought there would be a decent gentile population there, but not anymore.


Hellenism itself is as tough to describe as Judaism is, due to how much it permeated Hebrew culture broken down into socioeconomic divisions. Added to the multi cultural cultures of this area.


Pretty much, wish my memory was better.