Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#42561  Postby proudfootz » Mar 25, 2019 9:19 am

RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote:
Where? Where has 'parallel' been rigorously defined? Where has statistical analysis been done to show a particular number of parallels is significant. I bet anybody could take any two reasonably long texts coming from the same period and geographical area and find quite a few apparent 'parallels'

At least you're doing more than one hand-wave ...

22 parallels in common between two shortish passages would seem to be significant.

Multiply those two passages by hundreds more (mostly OT and NT parallels) ...


I'm looking forward to the hundreds of examples of parallels from any two texts selected at random. :drunk:

I suppose this means we can't really know whether the Bible texts are even talking about the same Jesus. :lol:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10580

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42562  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 25, 2019 10:25 am

MS2 wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?


Points (events, names, places, etc) within a narrative that are shared with another supposedly independent narrative.

That's not a sufficiently rigorous definition. It could be used to 'prove' anything (and thereby nothing).


If you are looking for an example of parallels have a read through the Eusebian canon tables:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebian_Canons

These list the agreements, or correspondences, or "parallels" between each of the four gospels. Some stuff is mentioned by all the four gospels, some stuff by three, some stuff by two and some stuff is unique to each.

When the gospels were first published in Greek codices, each was prefaced with these canon tables, which presumably was like an instant ready-reckoner on who said what, and who agreed with who. Think of a glossy brochure prefacing each gospel and advertising the AGREEMENTS ("parallels") between them.

Who in their right mind would go looking for differences in the gospels, when the church officially published the AGREEMENTS as a preface?

(Dont worry that is a rhetorical question)




How do we know how many parallels signify something?


We dont for sure. Its based AFAIU on statistical maths.


I don't think so. I can't see any statistical maths in the linked article.

But apparently they think 22 undefined 'parallels' is a significant number for some reason.


It's fascinating.


On one side of the possible explanations there is coincidence and the Infinite Monkey Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem.

On another side is the probability that the two stories are not independent.


And somewhere in between is the likelihood that 2 stories written by people with similar backgrounds, stories set in the same location, at roughly the same time etc etc will have a (currently unknown) number of (currently undefined) parallels.

There's a vast amount of work that hasn't been done before someone can even begin to show that a particular number of parallels is significant


There's always more work that can be done.


Once that number is reached, how do we know what it signifies?


As the parallels increase the probability of dependence increases. If the stories are dependent upon one another then it generally follows that elements ("narrative points") of one (later) story have been borrowed from the other (earier) story.


As a general statement this makes sense. But for the reasons mentioned above, as far as I can see nobody has done the groundwork to turn it into an argument that can prove anything.


Well I will leave that for others. However as I mentioned above part of the methodology behind the argument will the logic inherent in statistical maths and probability theory. There are standard tests that can be applied to any suitably defined data in order to determine whether a distrubution of data is a result of chance, or whether there is a process at work which can explain and model the distribution of the data, no matter what that is.

Yes I acknowledge there are no probability calculations in the paper. Maybe they could trot out Bayes Theorem like Carrier? But the logic that as the number of parallels (defined by the example above) increases, the probability of textual independence decreases, may not be immediately straight-forward, but it is sound.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 762

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42563  Postby RealityRules » Mar 25, 2019 11:00 am

proudfootz wrote:I'm looking forward to the hundreds of examples of parallels from any two texts selected at random. :drunk:

I suppose this means we can't really know whether the Bible texts are even talking about the same Jesus. :lol:

i'm not sure about selected at random, but there are clear indications themes of the OT were used in writing the NT, and even whole passages as part of that.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42564  Postby Svartalf » Mar 25, 2019 11:22 am

Stolen passages from the OT put into NT? do you have more precise references? My own research is that most of the prophecies Matthew says Jesus 'fulfilled' are found nowhere else than Matthew... I'm ready to believe that early (Jewish) Christians were steeped in OT culture, but the degree of influence you state is a bit more than I have personally noticed.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 392
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42565  Postby MS2 » Mar 25, 2019 7:30 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
MS2 wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?


Points (events, names, places, etc) within a narrative that are shared with another supposedly independent narrative.

That's not a sufficiently rigorous definition. It could be used to 'prove' anything (and thereby nothing).


If you are looking for an example of parallels have a read through the Eusebian canon tables:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebian_Canons

I'm not. I'm looking for a rigorous definition of what we are supposed to be looking for and counting.

The argument is that a certain number of such countable things provides evidence of something. Without a definition we don't know how many countable things there are and the argument doesn't get off the ground.

I'm not suggesting similarities between texts don't exist by the way. Take any two texts and there are likely to be both similarities and differences, whether the texts are related or not. The problem is knowing what to make of them. Some people think they have developed a method that involves counting them. So I'm asking questions about that method. If it's a sound method then I welcome it.






Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1642
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42566  Postby proudfootz » Mar 25, 2019 7:45 pm

Let's start from Square One: What is the statistical analysis that shows that GMark, GMatthew, GLuke, and GJohn are talking about the same Jesus rather than unrelated characters and it's not just coincidental 'parallels' likely to be found comparing any texts from the same region from the same time?

LOL
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10580

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42567  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 26, 2019 12:18 am

MS2 wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:If you are looking for an example of parallels have a read through the Eusebian canon tables:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebian_Canons


I'm not. I'm looking for a rigorous definition of what we are supposed to be looking for and counting.

The argument is that a certain number of such countable things provides evidence of something. Without a definition we don't know how many countable things there are and the argument doesn't get off the ground.


There does not appear to be a rigorous definition in the article.

It is not necessarily bad to tread warily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallelomania

    In historical analysis, biblical criticism and comparative mythology, parallelomania refers to a phenomenon (mania) where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies allegedly without historical basis.[1]

Vridar has some response to this:
https://vridar.org/2014/03/20/parallels ... ifference/

IDK their definition however I am happy to try and reverse engineer their claim and try and understand how their parallels have been assembled. So here is a summary of these 22 claimed parallels from the article cited originally:

(1) Both primary subjects of the two stories are named “Jesus” ( _J.W._, VI. 300; Mark, passim).
(2) Both in a social class (constituting about 5% of the population) which ranked below peasants
(3) Both presumed by Jerusalemite leaders to be demon-possessed.
(4) Both thought to be deranged by certain people.
(5) Both depicted as being daily in the Temple.
(6) Both present in the Temple
(7) Both draw upon sections of Jeremiah 7
(8) Both pronounce woes on the people
(9) Both pronounce doom upon the Temple
(10) Both arrested by or at the instigation of Jerusalem leaders.
(11) Both make an inflammatory pronouncement against the Temple.
(12) Both keep silence in face of charges
(13) Both physically abused at their Jewish hearings.
(14) Both delivered to the Roman procurator by Jerusalem authorities.
(15) Both interrogated by their respective governor
(16) Both are asked by the Roman governor to disclose their identities.
(17) Each procurator moves then to release “his Jesus.”
(18) Both are scourged at the conclusion of their respective Roman hearings.
(19) Both are killed by the Roman soldiers.
(20) Both let out a woeful cry of personal woe just before dying.
(21) Both die with a loud cry.
(22) Both stories use the same syntactical term for Temple NAOS

So the reverse-engineering question now becomes what method and/or definition of a "parallel" has been used by Weeden to arrive at the above distribution of data. At the moment IDK. Some of these look general enough to describe everyday life in Judea.
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Mar 26, 2019 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 762

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42568  Postby Leucius Charinus » Mar 26, 2019 12:20 am

Duplicated
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 762

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42569  Postby RealityRules » Mar 26, 2019 8:48 am

MS2 wrote: I'm not suggesting similarities between texts don't exist by the way. Take any two texts and there are likely to be both similarities and differences, whether the texts are related or not.

There are more likely to be similarities in texts that are related, such as Matthew, Mark and Luke.

One would think these specific texts - Josephus Jewish War 6.301-9 and Mark's Passover Narrative, Mark 14.2 - 15. 37 - would be entirely unrelated. 22 close meme-parallels is significant.

As are the fact there is also another parallel involved in this section of the Gospel According to Mark - Jerimiah - and that it follows a Jewish mythoptype, -

.... Mark adapted [a Jewish mythotype] to construct his Passion Narrative, as noted by George Nickelsburg.87 In Jewish myths and legends, ‘tales about a wise [or righteous] man [or woman] who, as the object of a conspiracy or plot, is persecuted, consigned to death, rescued, vindicated, and exalted to high position in the royal court’ were commonplace, as were wisdom tales that feature a righteous man ‘who is put to death but exalted in the heavenly courtroom where he confronts his enemies as their judge’. And what is shared across both genres is ‘the rescue and vindication of a persecuted innocent person’.88 Nickelsburg analyzes the Markan Passion Narrative and finds it is just another rewrite of this same mytheme.89

    87. George Nickelsburg, ‘The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative’, Harvard Theological Review 73 (January–April 1980), pp. 153-84.

    88. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 156.

    89. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, pp. 157-62.

The shared plot structure is: introduction (of the characters and situation), provocation (of the authorities by some act of or for the hero), conspiracy (in which the authorities look for the right moment or means to dispose of the hero), interwoven with a subplot of decision (the hero must choose between obeying God or the authorities), trust (the decision to obey God is described in terms of trusting God’s will) often voiced in a prayer (for deliverance), and obedience (to God and the hero’s fate, usually death); and many versions of this tale accomplish these elements with a trial at court. Formal accusations are brought against the hero (usually false or distorted); s/he faces a trial (or the equivalent), is condemned; attempts are made to save him or her (as in Mark’s case, Pilate attempts to let Jesus go), but these fail, so s/he undergoes an ordeal, and is then rescued, vindicated, and exalted. These stories also usually narrate the different reactions of those witnessing the key events, and often involve the hero being invested with royal power. God is then praised, the hero’s new status acclaimed, and the persecutors punished (by the hero or at his or her decision or on his or her behalf).

Although ‘these stories have emplotted a common theme in a highly consistent series and sequence of narrative components, each story has its own particular inner consistency and storyline that runs through its major elements and differentiates it from other stories in the genre’.90 They also often contain allusions or links to God’s suffering righteous servant in the OT (including Isaiah 53; hence, note again Elements 5 through 7).91 Mark’s Passion Narrative follows this generic storyline thoroughly.92 For example, in the scene at Gethsemene, Jesus chooses to trust and obey God and prays for deliverance, while the whole preceding Gospel builds the theme of provocation (e.g. Mk 3.6; 11.18; 14.1).93

Nickelsburg imagines the clearing of the temple as the final provocation (Mk 11.18). Of course, that scene is hardly believable: the temple grounds were enormous, occupying many acres (the temple as a whole occupied nearly forty acres, and a large portion of that, at least ten acres, was devoted to public space), extensively populated (there would have been hundreds of merchants and moneychangers there), and heavily guarded by an armed force deployed to prevent just this sort of thing.94 They would have killed Jesus on the spot. So the story is obviously fiction even on that point alone. But its literary artistry leads us to the same conclusion.95 When Jesus clears the temple he quotes Jer. 7.11 (in Mk 11.17), whose own narrative bears too many coincidental parallels to be accidental: Jeremiah and Jesus both enter the temple (Jer. 7.1-2; Mk 11.15), make the same accusation against the corruption of the temple cult (Jeremiah quoting a revelation from the Lord, Jesus quoting Jeremiah), and predict the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7.12-14; Mk 14.57-58; 15.29).

Though that is said to be a false accusation in Mark, given Mk 13.1-2, where Jesus does indeed predict the temple’s destruction (and earlier, albeit more elusively, in 11.12-21), and given the ‘Jeremiah’ context that Jesus himself alludes to, what is false about the accusation is not the predicted destruction but that Jesus would do the destroying. Mark is thus exhibiting knowledge that the Romans would destroy it in 70 ce. Hence, again, Mark is writing after that year, and composing a fictional story to suit—a hindsight already confirmed by Mark’s knowledge of the temple’s destruction elsewhere (Mark 13; e.g. 13.2). Thus Mark may still have meant that Jesus really did say what his accusers report but did not mean it literally—and it is by taking it literally that their accusations become false, a theme of incomprehension among his enemies, mistaking the figurative for the literal, that Mark repeats throughout his Gospel. Mark’s reference to ‘false witnesses’ (pseudomarturoi) would then be an allusion to the ‘false prophets’ (pseudoprophētai) who similarly accused Jeremiah at trial (Jer. 26.7-11; in the Septuagint, 33.7-11).96 Although their accusation was true: Jeremiah had predicted the temple’s destruction. And it is for this ‘crime’ that Jeremiah stands trial, just as Jesus does (Mk 14.57-58 and 15.29), and though Jeremiah is acquitted (Jer. 26; lxx: 33), he says God will spare the city and sanctuary if the Jews repent of their crimes (Jer. 26.13), but they don’t, and of course the temple (the first temple) is destroyed by a foreign army. The parallel this draws with the fate of the second temple, similarly destroyed by a foreign army, and in Christian imagination because the Jews failed to repent of their crimes, is Mark’s obvious intention.

... the cleansing of the temple as a fictional scene has its primary inspiration from a targum of Zech. 14.21, where it is said ‘in that day there shall never again be traders in the house of Jehovah of hosts’, in combination with the whole intended theme of the Passover Narrative in Mark, which is against the corruption of the temple priesthood, most particularly in respect to money, as we see not only in Mk 11.15-18 but yet again in the beginning and ending of Mark 12 (which sandwich Mark’s emulation of the Passover haggadah ...)

Carrier, Chapter 10 in On the Historicity of Jesus ... Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2014. Kindle Edition.

    90. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 162.

    91. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 163.

    92. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, pp. 164-66.

    93. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 171.

    94. Besides Acts 4.1 and 1 Chronicles 26, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 15.403-409, and the analysis of Robert Miller, ‘The (A)Historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology’, in Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers: One Hundred Twenty-Seventh Annual Meeting (ed. Eugene Lovering; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), pp. 235-52.

    95. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 166.

    96. Nickelsburg, ‘Genre’, p. 179, argues that what was false is their claim to have heard the prediction, when Jesus in fact had only said it in private to his disciples; although one could wonder why then Judas, a disciple, was not brought as a witness, it’s always possible Mark didn’t think of that when composing his fiction (as I’ve said before, many a novelist and screenwriter has made a similar mistake).
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42570  Postby MS2 » Mar 26, 2019 6:27 pm

RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote: I'm not suggesting similarities between texts don't exist by the way. Take any two texts and there are likely to be both similarities and differences, whether the texts are related or not.

There are more likely to be similarities in texts that are related, such as Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Agreed

One would think these specific texts - Josephus Jewish War 6.301-9 and Mark's Passover Narrative, Mark 14.2 - 15. 37 - would be entirely unrelated.

I know what you're trying to say. But 'entirely unrelated' is overstating it. They are both written in the Jewish milieu, so the appearance of similar Jewish themes would be unsurprising, and they have the same geographical setting so mentions of Jerusalem, for example, would be unsurprising.

22 close meme-parallels is significant.

As I say, 'parallels', or indeed 'meme-parallels', haven't been rigorously defined. So we don't know that there are 22 of them. (Indeed, if one person's definition is loose enough they could count a great many more; if it is a tight definition they could count considerably less.)

And for any given definition we don't know how many occurrences is significant. I guess it seems intuitive to you that 22 must be significant. But your intuition isn't necessarily correct.

It seems to me that for any two texts there may be a probable number of similarities that can be attributed to coincidence. But we don't know what that number is. Beyond that, there will be other reasons for similarities, just one of which is literary dependence (others being similar settings etc). The situation therefore is far more complex than simply counting parallels. (and I haven't even mentioned the question of the length of the texts, how the texts are selected etc!)

As are the fact there is also another parallel involved in this section of the Gospel According to Mark - Jerimiah - and that it follows a Jewish mythoptype, -

I don't think anyone doubts the Hebrew scriptures helped shape Mark's narrative. I certainly don't.




Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1642
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42571  Postby Tracer Tong » Mar 28, 2019 2:46 pm

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't find the supposed 22 parallels mentioned above very impressive (19 is unintentionally humorous, though).
Тебя прощают. Не будут больше подавать платок.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1485
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42572  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2019 10:53 am

MS2 wrote:As I say, 'parallels', or indeed 'meme-parallels', haven't been rigorously defined. So we don't know that there are 22 of them. (Indeed, if one person's definition is loose enough they could count a great many more; if it is a tight definition they could count considerably less.)

And for any given definition we don't know how many occurrences is significant. I guess it seems intuitive to you that 22 must be significant. But your intuition isn't necessarily correct.

It seems to me that for any two texts there may be a probable number of similarities that can be attributed to coincidence. But we don't know what that number is. Beyond that, there will be other reasons for similarities, just one of which is literary dependence (others being similar settings etc). The situation therefore is far more complex than simply counting parallels. (and I haven't even mentioned the question of the length of the texts, how the texts are selected etc!)

See
  1. ... Scholars assess the Two Jesus Parallels
    .
  2. ... More Scholars assess the Two Jesus Parallels
.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42573  Postby MS2 » Mar 29, 2019 4:26 pm

RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote:As I say, 'parallels', or indeed 'meme-parallels', haven't been rigorously defined. So we don't know that there are 22 of them. (Indeed, if one person's definition is loose enough they could count a great many more; if it is a tight definition they could count considerably less.)

And for any given definition we don't know how many occurrences is significant. I guess it seems intuitive to you that 22 must be significant. But your intuition isn't necessarily correct.

It seems to me that for any two texts there may be a probable number of similarities that can be attributed to coincidence. But we don't know what that number is. Beyond that, there will be other reasons for similarities, just one of which is literary dependence (others being similar settings etc). The situation therefore is far more complex than simply counting parallels. (and I haven't even mentioned the question of the length of the texts, how the texts are selected etc!)

See
  1. ... Scholars assess the Two Jesus Parallels
    .
  2. ... More Scholars assess the Two Jesus Parallels
.

Neither of those addresses any of my points. (Not surprisingly in the case of the first,as my points were made in response to it.)

The author, and apparently all those he cites, simply shares your acceptance that there is no need to define what constitutes a ‘parallel’ and shares your intuition that 22 such parallels must be significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1642
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42574  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2019 8:07 pm

MS2 wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote: I'm not suggesting similarities between texts don't exist by the way. Take any two texts and there are likely to be both similarities and differences, whether the texts are related or not.

There are more likely to be similarities in texts that are related, such as Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Agreed

One would think these specific texts - Josephus Jewish War 6.301-9 and Mark's Passover Narrative, Mark 14.2 - 15. 37 - would be entirely unrelated.

I know what you're trying to say. But 'entirely unrelated' is overstating it. They are both written in the Jewish milieu, so the appearance of similar Jewish themes would be unsurprising, and they have the same geographical setting so mentions of Jerusalem, for example, would be unsurprising.

22 close meme-parallels is significant.

As I say, 'parallels', or indeed 'meme-parallels', haven't been rigorously defined. So we don't know that there are 22 of them. (Indeed, if one person's definition is loose enough they could count a great many more; if it is a tight definition they could count considerably less.)

Each needs to be taken individually. And they have been. Sure, some are stronger than others and some are, as you have pointed out, just based loosely on geography. But the package of parallels would seem to be as significant or even greater than the sum of them.

A lengthy (343 page) and detailed analysis of this topic was penned almost 15 years ago:

Theodore J. Weeden
Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation
Forum: Foundations and Facets
New Series 6, 2 Fall 2003

Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation (Theodore J. Weeden)

Prologue
Part One, Sec. A: The Case for Mark’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus the Son of Ananias
Part One, Sec. B: The Markan Jesus and Jesus the Son of Ananias
Part Two: The Case for Luke and the Final Q Redactor’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
Part Three: The Case for John’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
Part Four: Results of the Investigation of Parallels Between Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth
Addendum: The Case for Caesarea Philippi as the Provenance for the Markan Community
Epilogue: A Case for the Typecasting of Jesus Son of Ananias Originally as a Latter-Day Jeremiah

https://vridar.org/2019/03/28/still-bet ... ment-92009
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42575  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2019 8:23 pm

r.g.price wrote:... I believe the Jesus of Mark is primarily based on the apostle Paul. It is from Paul that we see the strongest and most relevant parallels. The teaching of Jesus come primarily from Paul. The relationships to the apostles in based on Paul. The Eucharist comes from Paul. I suspect that even the idea of crucifixion comes from Paul ...

So I think Paul is the main inspiration for the Jesus character, and that can be established pretty solidly.

But there is certainly room for other influences as well.

My view is that whoever wrote Mark was a highly proficient, professional writer, who was well ready and had extensive experience crafting narratives like Mark. This was certainly no amateur scribe we are dealing with.

So given that this person was likely very well read, was clearly interested in the complexities of the issues, and was, I believe writing this story in reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War, it is certainly possible that this person had read The Jewish War, and possibly even works from Philo as well.

I believe that whoever wrote Mark had done extensive background “research” for his story and was someone who had written many other such stories. It is thus very plausible that such a person would draw from a wide range of source documents and would exhibit a wide range of influences. https://vridar.org/2019/03/28/still-bet ... ment-92010
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42576  Postby Svartalf » Mar 29, 2019 8:34 pm

WtF, Mark is supposed to be a SOURCE for Luke (who was Paul's secretary and likely catamite), stating that Paul is the source of mark just is weird, since ^paul influenced Luke, not Mark.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 392
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42577  Postby RealityRules » Mar 29, 2019 9:45 pm

Svartalf wrote:... Mark is supposed to be a Source for Luke

Sure. Luke likely also used Matthew (as well as Mark) and a few other sources.

r.g.price's proposes

    (a) Mark mostly used (i) Paul, and (ii) aspects of the LXX-O.T., and (iii) aspects of accounts of the First Roman-Jewish War; and

    (b) Paul's letters are largely based on the LXX-O.T. [and I think possibly 'Gnostic' or similar texts or themes]
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42578  Postby Svartalf » Mar 29, 2019 10:39 pm

doesn't compute, Luke was the guy who spent most time with Paul, if Mark drew from Paul, why would Luke have used that as a source rather than simply relying on the horses's mouth?... No Paul, as a source, is totally secondary, and paul and Matthew drew from Mark and possibly the Q document. Plus, accounts of the Roman Jewish war, that is, Josephus, might have been too recent to have had wide circulation while Mark and the other two synoptic authors were wordking, having access to that seems unlikely... John, around 98, might have had access to Josephus, but his writings make it obvious he had more access to mushrooms and ergotized bread instead.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 392
Age: 49
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42579  Postby MS2 » Mar 30, 2019 12:30 am

RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote:
RealityRules wrote:
MS2 wrote: I'm not suggesting similarities between texts don't exist by the way. Take any two texts and there are likely to be both similarities and differences, whether the texts are related or not.

There are more likely to be similarities in texts that are related, such as Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Agreed

One would think these specific texts - Josephus Jewish War 6.301-9 and Mark's Passover Narrative, Mark 14.2 - 15. 37 - would be entirely unrelated.

I know what you're trying to say. But 'entirely unrelated' is overstating it. They are both written in the Jewish milieu, so the appearance of similar Jewish themes would be unsurprising, and they have the same geographical setting so mentions of Jerusalem, for example, would be unsurprising.

22 close meme-parallels is significant.

As I say, 'parallels', or indeed 'meme-parallels', haven't been rigorously defined. So we don't know that there are 22 of them. (Indeed, if one person's definition is loose enough they could count a great many more; if it is a tight definition they could count considerably less.)

Each needs to be taken individually.

Each what? Since it is not well-defined, we have no way of agreeing what needs to be taken individually. So we are left with subjective opinions.

And they have been. Sure, some are stronger than others and some are, as you have pointed out, just based loosely on geography. But the package of parallels would seem to be as significant or even greater than the sum of them.

Again, an entirely subjective opinion. Which you are fully entitled to. But doesn't amount to a reasoned argument. Somebody could just as easily say, "I only see 15 (or 10, or 5) parallels, and for me that number isn't enough".

If you want to offer a reasoned argument you need to (a) justify the number counted and (b) justify the number at which the count becomes significant.



Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk
Mark
MS2
 
Posts: 1642
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42580  Postby RealityRules » Mar 30, 2019 7:10 am

MS2 wrote: Somebody could just as easily say, "I only see 15 (or 10, or 5) parallels, and for me that number isn't enough".

Then they - and you - are equally obliged to argue which ones'don't meet the criteria of parallel. You're merely hand-waving [frantically] and blowing smoke.

MS2 wrote:
If you want to offer a reasoned argument you need to (a) justify the number counted and (b) justify the number at which the count becomes significant.

>>
A lengthy (343 page) and detailed analysis of this topic was penned almost 15 years ago:

Theodore J. Weeden
Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation
Forum: Foundations and Facets
New Series 6, 2 Fall 2003

Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation (Theodore J. Weeden)

Prologue
Part One, Sec. A: The Case for Mark’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus the Son of Ananias
Part One, Sec. B: The Markan Jesus and Jesus the Son of Ananias
Part Two: The Case for Luke and the Final Q Redactor’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
Part Three: The Case for John’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
Part Four: Results of the Investigation of Parallels Between Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth
Addendum: The Case for Caesarea Philippi as the Provenance for the Markan Community
Epilogue: A Case for the Typecasting of Jesus Son of Ananias Originally as a Latter-Day Jeremiah

https://vridar.org/2019/03/28/still-bet ... ment-92009
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2767

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests