PTET answers Tektonics

[PTET]

Hi all

It's been a while!

I have a new webpage at: PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.htm)

I'd appreciate any comments, criticisms or suggestions - if anyone can spare the time - before the link gets out into the wild.

Since it almost entirely relates to Biblical Criticism & History, I thought this would be the most appropriate forum.

Thanks in advance...

PTET

[MrKrinkles]

PTET,

I think you left out "with" from the following sentence segment: "posted a page attacking my website some amount of gusto."

Thanks for putting up the link to your page. I am still reading it, but I like your use of supporting information. I think you do a great job of pointing out "Holding's" illogic, fallacies and hypocrisy.

Cheers,

Brooks

[Vinnie]

Justin uses a harmony of Matthew and Luke around the middle of the second century.

Allowing ample time for Matthew and Luke to grow in popularity to be harmonized together and then to be recognized by JM in the middle of the second century requires, in my estimation, 1 to 2 generations of time for development.

We can shave--at the least-- thirty years off of Andrew Bernhard's upper dating of 150 for Matthew and Luke by JM's usage alone.

Plus Mark predates these Gospels and Papias testifies to Mark.

External attestation places us no later than the BEGINNING of the 2d century for these Gospels. 150 is much to late a date.

60-120 I might buy into but not 60-150.

Does he address Justin's usage at all in his article?

Vinnie

[PTET]

Thanks for your comments so far... I'll update my page (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.htm) marking significant changes as they come in...

Vinnie: Bernhard argues that we can't be sure that any references pre c. 150 CE are to the canonical Gospels in a recognizable form:

Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark... around 130 C.E. However, his comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His brief description of a writing of Matthew as “logia in the Hebrew dialect” is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text... Further ambiguity surrounds Papias’ comments about Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peter’s preaching... Yet, it is difficult to believe that so carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere chaotic collection of unordered notes... Further, Papias does not actually state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply that he did)... Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.

Dating Early Christian Gospels (http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm) by Andrew Bernhard
As I understand it, we can be pretty sure that Justin Martyr didn't use the canonical Gospels either:

The works attributed to Justin do not mention the works of Paul directly, and never "name" any of the four Gospels. They talk of the husband of Jesus's mother being part of the burial of Jesus; a fire being kindled in the river Jordan at the baptism of Christ and Jesus's works as a carpenter...

The pagan appeal of Justin Martyr (http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/justin.html) by PTET
If you have any further information, I'd be delighted to take it into account.

PTET

[Vinnie]

A lot of info on JM is available. Helmut Koester devotes a whole section to him in Ancient Christian Gospels. I find the notion that JM did not use the Gospels very perplexing! Can you document me any major sources actually arguing this? JM might not have been dependent on the Gospels directly but he was directly dependent on works with harmonized them.

I actually forgot a step.

1. Matthew and Luke were written.
2. They became popular or authoritative enough to be harmonized.
3. The harmonization became recognized and was used for the composition of clusters of sayings.
4. These clusters were recognized and used by JM.

If this right here is accurate then I would say one should allow about 2 generations of develmental time. This pushes Matthew and luke to ca 100 C.E. at the latest---pretty close to standard datings.

At any rate, Justin Martyr wrote in ca. 150. ad.

In Studying the Synoptics Sanders and Davies outlined this passage

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA

Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way because in an english translation its not easy to see this. But here are the agreements and disagreements:

Justin (agrees with)
not fear those = Matt and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matt and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

Sanders and Davies went on to say this:

"If justin had our Gospels before him, he was very careful to alternate words in copying from Matthew and Luke, taking 'after these things' from Luke, 'are are not able' from Matthew, and so on. There are two more likely explanations. one is that he quoted from memory and naturally conflated two similar passages. The other is that he had not our gospels but a collection of sayings which itself depended on them: that he used a prepared harmony."

That Justin was conflating from memory the Gospels of Matthew and Luke is entirely unlikely. See Koester's treatment of Justin in Ancient Christian Gospels pp. 360-402 for more information.

Allowing ample time for development of the 4 stage process outlined above puts us at ca 100 C.E. as the upper limit for Matthew and Luke. These two Gospels were dependent upon Mark commonly believed to have been written ca 70 C.E.

There is nothing wrong with the communis opinio in scholarship today on dating. Even if Bernhard cut some of those 4 steps out we would still be left with at least a generation (60-120 as opposed to the very late 150!). I think the four step is accurate and 100 C.E. as the upper limit on the basis of Justin's usage alone is the most probable time frame.

This of course says nothing at all about GJohn.

Vinnie

[PTET]

Thanks again Vinnie... I still do not see how we can be sure that Justin was using a harmony of the canonical GMark & GLuke! But in any event, I certainly wouldn't argue with your dates for the Gospels.

You may be interested in Bernhard's defence of his article in this thread:

New Testament scholars trying to locate a gospel in a particular decade seems to me about a fruitful as physicists trying to locate a particle more precisely than allowed by the limitations described by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If this conclusion is congenial to many people that makes me happy. If it's not, I do not care. That is what I honestly think.

Andrew Bernhard, soc.history.ancient (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=91297419.0206191150.27ee3e6d%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dptet%2Bbernhard%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D91297419.0206191150.27ee3e6d%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2), 2002-06-18 12:40:40 PSTAnd now I'm off to follow up on your reading suggestions!

Kind regards

PTET

[Vinnie]

I still do not see how we can be sure that Justin was using a harmony of the canonical GMark & GLuke!

I left GMark out and focused on GMatthew and GLuke. I don't have time to go through more of JM's references at this point but they are in there. Koester does though if you can snag a peak at the work. At any rate, I think I share the majority opinion when I say JM makes extensive use of Gospel material found in Matthew and Luke (even if indirectly). I've never even seen anyone argue otherwise.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

I checked that thread. JM was not discussed. Only mentioned twice in passing.

Vinnie

[PTET]

Hi Vinnie

Thanks again for your input. As I'm sure you appreciate, Bernhard's argument is not that the dating of the Gospels should be revised to c. 150 CE - it is that the dating of the Gospels is simply unclear and often influenced (on either side) by dogmatic considerations. I'll certainly update my information on Justin Martyr & the 150 CE date. You might like to contact Mr Bernhard directly, if you'd like to discuss his position further.

If there's anything else you'd like to comment on, I'd be delighted to hear from you!

PTET

PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.htm)

[Bernard Muller]

About Bernhard, I think because of his interest for non-canonical gospels, he would have a tendency to date the canonical ones very late, in order to lessen their relative importance.

Harmonization? Here is one example where Justin knew of several gospels and then provided a quote on the last supper which combines Paul's version with Matthew's:

1Apology LXVI "For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."

Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.

I think mythicists and ultra skepticals have a very shallow idea about the gospels. If dissected (more so for GMark) they provide a wealth of information which is against the grain. They are very far from being clean literary compositions as some pure fictional stories. They had to go against realities and regardless save the day.

From GMark, this is what I found out about the some of the "problems" "Mark" had to face:

Here is an abbreviated list of items where "Mark" tried to counteract the embarrassment (E) or explain the silence (S):
a) Disciples not saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:42-43) (S)
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
c) Disciples not "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (8:17-21) (S)
d) Disciples not claiming Jesus was Christ (8:29-30) (S)
e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
f) Disciples not telling about the events on the high mountain (9:9-10) (S)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
h) Disturbance in the temple (11:17) (E)
i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
k) Disciples not knowing about the empty tomb and Jesus' rising (16:8) (S)
Note: other subsequent gospels eliminated some (GMatthew, more for GLuke) or most (GJohn) of these items, one way or another (either straight deletion or "correction").

Best regards, Bernard

[Vinnie]

L: Paucity of gentile related material ;)
M: I would add the baptism in here as well.

and yes, the paucity of Messiah related material (d) is very important as well as lots of the other points you raised :)

""""""Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.""""""""

One example will not demonstrate this as he could have done this in some instances and not others. His Gospel material needs to be evaluated collectively.

Vinnie

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Bernard Muller
Here is an abbreviated list of items where "Mark" tried to counteract the embarrassment (E) or explain the silence (S):
a) Disciples not saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:42-43) (S)
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
c) Disciples not "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (8:17-21) (S)
d) Disciples not claiming Jesus was Christ (8:29-30) (S)
e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
f) Disciples not telling about the events on the high mountain (9:9-10) (S)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
h) Disturbance in the temple (11:17) (E)
i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
k) Disciples not knowing about the empty tomb and Jesus' rising (16:8) (S)
Note: other subsequent gospels eliminated some (GMatthew, more for GLuke) or most (GJohn) of these items, one way or another (either straight deletion or "correction").

Specifically, what historical realities do you think these passages represent?

Within a mythicist context, the "messianic secret" theme serves to explain new information being introduced. It answers the reader's questions: Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this particular miracle? and Why did these guys from Jerusalem (i.e. the Pillars) wait so long to declare Jesus the Messiah or tell anybody about his missing body?

I don't see any "embarrassment" about the disturbance in the Temple. I see a fictional event created to explain why the Romans would be motivated enough to crucify Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

Amaleq13 wrote:
Specifically, what historical realities do you think these passages represent?

The ones I showed with a "S" mean "Mark" had to explain (and did explain somehow) the silence of eyewitness(es) on the items mentioned (here there was no historical reality).
The ones I showed with a "E" mean "Mark" had to put a good spin on something "against the grain" heard by eyewitness(es) (here there were historical realities).

Amaleq13 wrote:
Within a mythicist context, the "messianic secret" theme serves to explain new information being introduced. It answers the reader's questions: Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this particular miracle? and Why did these guys from Jerusalem (i.e. the Pillars) wait so long to declare Jesus the Messiah or tell anybody about his missing body?

Actually I agree with that, even if I am not a mythicist.
For your first question, the answer is, because the miracle did not happen, it was never told by the eyewitness(es).
For the second one, again, because that was never heard from the pillars, because there was no empty tomb and "these guys in Jerusalem" were never Christians.

"Mark" invented (among many other things) the empty tomb, all the extraordinary miracles, and Peter saying Jesus was Christ.

Amaleq13 wrote:
I don't see any "embarrassment" about the disturbance in the Temple. I see a fictional event created to explain why the Romans would be motivated enough to crucify Jesus.

I agree that event (with the "royal welcome") motivated enough the chief priests & the Romans to crucify Jesus, but I do not see why it would be fictional. Because "Mark" tried to apologize for it by combining two quotes from the OT, as to have Jesus fulfilling some scripture passages (explainig his actions). The problem?
This combination of scriptures do not fit what Jesus is reported to have done in the temple:

>> "Mark" tried to put a theological spin about Jesus' actions in the temple:
Mk11:17 "... he said, "Is it not written: "`My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,'? But you have made it a `den of robbers.'""
First, the quote comes from two different sources:
"My house [the temple] will be called a house of prayer for all nations" is part of Isa56:7. But "den of robbers" is from:
Jer7:11 "Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? ..."
But here, the robbers are not the merchants in the temple, but Jewish sinners who did horrible deeds (including stealing) outside and then felt "safe" because they would visit the temple afterwards:
Jer7:9-10 "`Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"--safe to do all these detestable things?
[no mention here of merchant's activities in the temple! No mention in the "Jesus' disturbance" of Jewish criminals/sinners using the holy place as a spiritual refuge!]"
Isa56:7/Jer7:9-11 (meaning, wording and "thrust") is so much irrelevant (relative to Mk11:15-16) that it cannot be considered the basis for Mark's narration of Jesus' disturbance. It is rather an awkward justification of Jesus' acts through some "reverse midrashism" (= attempt to explain an embarrassing fact as enactment of a scripture passage/prophecy). <<

However I have good reason to think that "Jesus riding the donkey" is totally fictional and meant to explain why suddenly Jesus would be acclaimed as "King" when he approached Jerusalem.

Everything above is explained with details on this page:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Vinnie wrote:
L: Paucity of gentile related material
M: I would add the baptism in here as well.

Ya, that would be valid, but I do not think it is as clear-cut as my other examples.
For the baptism, I do not see "Mark" making excuses that Jesus did not need it. But "Matthew" did, and "John" dropped it.

Vinnie wrote:
""""""Harmonization of several gospels? I think he was rather quoting & harmonizing from memory or by design.""""""""

One example will not demonstrate this as he could have done this in some instances and not others. His Gospel material needs to be evaluated collectively.

Well, Justin knew of several gospels/memoirs. So I do not think he needed a harmony.

Best regards, Bernard

[Amaleq13]

Bernard,


Thanks for the clarification. I'll offer some "mythicist context" replies.:)

b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)

This is obtained from the historical rejection of the Q prophets.

e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)

These seem to me to be more in the theme of the “messianic secret” rather than embarrassment over historical realities.

i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)

You think this is historical? Seems like a myth told for instructional purposes with the fig tree being symbolic. Where/why do you see embarrassment here?

j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)

Again, this seems part of the “messianic secret” theme but also appears to involve “inspired” reading of Scripture.

Regarding the scene of the disturbance at the Temple, you wrote:
…I do not see why it would be fictional.

My primary reason for considering fiction is that we know the Romans posted plenty of guards around the Temple courtyard where this event allegedly took place and it just doesn’t seem credible to me to suggest he would have gotten away with it. It seems to me he would have been killed or at least arrested on the spot. Second, the fact that the author of GJohn feels free to move the story from the end of Jesus’ career to the beginning suggests he, at least, didn’t consider it to be an historical story.

[Bernard Muller]

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is obtained from the historical rejection of the Q prophets.

That's a lot far-fetched and very remotely evidenced (I suppose you are thinking about the Didache. But where did you get "rejection from their own villages"). The Q prophets are one theory will no foundation, just speculations. Even Q is being challenged as early and/or as independant from the gospels.

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)
g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These seem to me to be more in the theme of the “messianic secret” rather than embarrassment over historical realities.

The "messianic secret" is too often used as some magical formula (or aphorism) in order to explain what does not make sense.
If "Mark" did not have to deal with memories of what disciples said (or didn't), why not have Peter as a Christian and as a firm believer of resurrections?

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think this is historical? Seems like a myth told for instructional purposes with the fig tree being symbolic. Where/why do you see embarrassment here?

I noted that "Mark" had Jesus providing an explanation **away** from the cursed & withered tree, completely side-stepping any symbolic meanings for the fig tree, the cursing and the withering.

Amaleq13 wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, this seems part of the “messianic secret” theme but also appears to involve “inspired” reading of Scripture.

Again, the "messianic secret' as the explanation. But later texts, GLuke & 'Acts' will removed that, with the disciples & Galileans starting the Church of Jerusalem very soon thereafter.
What "inspired" reading of Scripture passage?

Amaleq wrote:
Regarding the scene of the disturbance at the Temple, you wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…I do not see why it would be fictional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My primary reason for considering fiction is that we know the Romans posted plenty of guards around the Temple courtyard where this event allegedly took place and it just doesn’t seem credible to me to suggest he would have gotten away with it.

I do not think the Romans would jump the gun automatically if they saw a minor disturbance in the court of the temple, and more so if the disturber was surrounded by a crowd.
Such actions would have to be considered carefully and agreed from either the local commander or the prefect (if he was in Jerusalem), and with some of the chief priests consulted. Furthermore, I noted Jesus in Jerusalem happened at a times of weakness for the Roman rule over Judea. So they had to be careful. Any intervention in the temple by Romans soldiers could cause more problems that it would solve.

Of course, this is well explained on my website, more so:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes1x.shtml
and
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/hjes3.shtml


Amaleq13 wrote:
Second, the fact that the author of GJohn feels free to move the story from the end of Jesus’ career to the beginning suggests he, at least, didn’t consider it to be an historical story.

Ya, duly noted. But when I studied GJohn, I realized the gospel was developed over a long period (like 20-25 years) and the original gospel had the disturbance at the end, as in GMark.
Later, it got moved towards the beginning. Why?
Probably not to have the disturbance appearing to be the main cause of Jesus' arrest. More so that the resurrection of Lazarus had been added earlier, which the author wanted to be understood as the reason (indirectly) for Jesus' earthly end.

My study of GJohn here:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/jnintro.shtml


Best regards, Bernard

[Vorkosigan]

One can also find a wealth of material "against the grain" in Gone with the Wind or The Lord of the Rings. The whole "against the grain" argument pre-supposes that the story is history, it does not prove that it is history. Fiction goes "against the grain" as well. Creative writers are not ReligionBots or CultureBots.

As for Vinnie's argument on gentile material, the force of that one exists only in Vinnie's head.

Let's look at some of this "against the grain" material:

a) Disciples not saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:42-43) (S)

The whole sequence of Jairus' daughter is a well-known fiction based on the OT, specifically that of the Shunnamite woman in Elisha. Jairus' name "He Will Awaken" strongly attests to the fictionality of this passage. In any case, Bernard, I can't figure out what you mean, since the text clearly says some of the disciples were with him during this event. Since the event is fiction, the posture of the disciples is fiction too.

You and Vinnie both miss this vital point regarding the argument from "against the grain." Where events are demonstratably fiction, the motive is irrelevant. From the historical Jesus point of view, so long as we can show it to be fiction, we need not worry about why it was constructed.The "why" question applies to another topic, the history of early Christianity.

b) Rejection of Jesus in his own village (6:2-4) (E)

Again we have fiction. This is Mark's human Jesus. Matthew, building on this, rewrote it so that Jesus refused to perform miracles, not that he could not perform miracles. In other words, Matthew, who was a lot closer to the source, treated this event as fiction to be altered at will. Since no human can perform miracles, this whole discussion is about a fiction.

Mark here is probably attempting an apologetic explanation of why nobody in the alleged home of Jesus has ever heard of Jesus the miracle worker.

c) Disciples not "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (8:17-21) (S)

Be serious. The miraculous feedings are fictions.Whatever actions the disciples take are fictional. It is Mark's habit to denigrate the disciples in his fantasy about Jesus' life. Why he did it I do not claim to know, but that is unimportant beside the fact that he did so. Mark may just be trying to explain why the disciples didn't tell anyone about these things that Mark invented, because they were not in the tradition.

d) Disciples not claiming Jesus was Christ (8:29-30) (S)

Bernard, you have misread this passage. Jesus first asks who everyone else thinks he is: 27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."

Then he asks the disciples:29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ. "
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

...and Peter answers. The disciples do not indicate any lack of knowledge because they never answer here. Only Peter answers, for reasons that are obvious in the context of early Church claims about its own history.

e) Peter not comprehending (as a Christian would) Jesus' Passion (8:31-33, 9:31-32) (E)

The event in Mark 8 is fictional. It takes place with the usual complete lack of chronological markers. Further, there is another marker of fiction -- immediately after this Jesus "calls the crowd to him." What crowd? From where? The text in Mark 8 never mentions any setting with a crowd. Clearly it is fiction....

Mark 9 is clearly fiction as well that continues the theme of Mark 8 and the general denigration of the disciples. As Tacitus once put it, a negative judgment is no indication of truthfulness in history. Your reasoning, Bernard, is entirely circular. In order to make this history, you first have to assume it is history. The reality is that this event is fiction. Note the laconic signal of place: "they passed through Galilee." Two fictional events, the Transfiguration and the Healing, take place just prior to this sequence. Clearly we are looking at fiction.

f) Disciples not telling about the events on the high mountain (9:9-10) (S)

The Transfiguration is fiction (unless you would like to argue that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus on a mountaintop). Therefore, all reactions are fictional. Perhaps Mark is simply trying to account for the fact that these stories don't exist in the tradition and he is making them up. Or maybe his wing of Christianity dislikes the disciples.

g) Disciples not knowing what is meant by resurrection (9:10,31-32) (E)

Bernard, how you infer that from this...10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant....is beyond me. Consider the following sentence: "Bob, Al and Neil discussed what quantum physics meant." Would you assume from that sentence that they did not know anything about the topic? No. Discussion implies discussion. It does not imply a lack of knowledge. In any case, since this occurs during the Transfiguration sequence, which is fictional, we know that this discussion is likewise fictional.

h) Disturbance in the temple (11:17) (E)

A well-known fiction based on the OT. There was never any disturbance in the Temple.

i) Peter saying Jesus cursed a fig tree (11:21-24) (E)

Can we stop now? This is a fiction. Trees do not wither when cursed. Peter's role says something about Mark's view of Peter, not what Peter did in history.

j) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (14:27) (E)

Also based on the OT (Zech) -- the story even cites the OT phrase that gave rise to the passage! As Helms put it, this is just one more example of Mark's "obsessive" focus on denigrating the disciples. The entire Passion is fiction-construction and contains no history whatsoever, except perhaps in its most basic outline.

k) Disciples not knowing about the empty tomb and Jesus' rising (16:8) (S)

Let's see....when people respond to fictional events....their responses are fictional! Paul does not know this story, and his whole sequence of events is different. Hmmm.......

Note: other subsequent gospels eliminated some (GMatthew, more for GLuke) or most (GJohn) of these items, one way or another (either straight deletion or "correction").

No kidding. Because the other gospelers did not understand this as history.

Vorkosigan

[Amaleq13]

In reply to my suggestion that Mk's claim that Jesus was rejected by his hometown was inspired by the rejection of the Q prophets, Bernard wrote:
That's a lot far-fetched and very remotely evidenced (I suppose you are thinking about the Didache. But where did you get "rejection from their own villages").

As far as I know, the prophets in the Didache are not portrayed as being rejected. The Didache community is instructed how to receive them and how to tell whether they are genuine.

The contents of Q, however, do describe prophets being rejected in the various towns they preached their gospel. These prophets are understood, at least by Kloppenborg, to have called this general area "home". The addition of apocalyptic warnings to the text is understood as a reaction to that rejection. In actuality, Mark would only have to be familiar with prophets, in general, who no doubt had less success gaining credibility among those who had known them their whole lives. I would expect the "act" worked best with an audience that had no prior knowledge of the "prophet". Think John Edward's babysitter believes he can talk to the dead?:D

I don't think I need to add anything more to what Vorkosigan has said except that I consider your inconsistent acceptance of the "messianic secret" as an explanation for new material to be arbitrary.

[PTET]

Hi all

J P Holding has entered into a discussion with me in a Theologyweb Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=320327#post320327).

He promises a forthcoming parody demolition of my page PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html).

Just in case you're interested ;)

PTET (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html)

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by PTET
Hi all

It's been a while!

I have a new webpage at: PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.htm)

I'd appreciate any comments, criticisms or suggestions - if anyone can spare the time - before the link gets out into the wild.

Since it almost entirely relates to Biblical Criticism & History, I thought this would be the most appropriate forum.

Thanks in advance...

PTET
Hi PTET, I'm a liberal Christian who has looked into some of these claims of Pagan parallels myself. I always suggest that people check the claims out for themselves with the source (like Hindu or mythology websites), and not rely on websites with their own agendas, like religioustolenrence, ANYTHING by Freke and Gandy, or Tektonics.

After checking the claims ofor myself, I found that a lot of these parallels simply have no basis in fact. Alternatively, I admit I've found some that do.

In your article http://ptet.dubar.com/christian-paganism.html#RK, you said: "Jesus Christ": The story contains elements found in the mythologies of almost every culture - a god-man who is killed but reborn, who will return at a future date to offer liberation.

Could you name a few of these god-men who is killed but reborn, and will return at a future date to offer liberation?

Some contenders are:
(1) Mithra will return to judge, but he was a god, and not born as a man, nor does he die in the myths.
(2) Zoroaster wasn't a god, and died quite old. But it is "one from his seed" that will return to judge.

Do you have any parallel that is closer than these?

You also said:
Like Jesus, Krishna was called both God and the Son of God; he was sent to heaven in the form of a man; he was the saviour and the second person of a trinity; his mother was a virgin (called "Maia"); and he died and was resurrected

Perhaps you should check some Hindu sites. Krishna was a "Saviour", true, but he "saved" by killing the wicked, including his uncle, the wicked King Kansa. Also, he was the 8th son of Devaki (not "Maia") who was definitely NOT a virgin when he was born.

The Trinity is Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Brahma is basically the supreme guy, and everything else is an aspect of him. Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu, so there is a parallel to the "second person of a trinity", at one level at least. To my mind, it doesn't seem to represent copying though - what do you think?

Krishna was killed when he was shot in the foot by an arrow (mistaken for a deer!) I'm not sure "resurrection" is the right word to use, but it is true he then went to heaven.

The best thing to do is actually check these things out for yourself, as I have done. I suggest you check the list of parallels in the religioustolerence website at http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm against an actual hindu website, and then see how many are actually valid. You may be surprised at the result. I'd be interested in hearing what you find out. Here is a good link to get you started: http://www.hindu-mythology.com/html/krishna.htm

[PTET]

Hi GakuseiDon

Thanks for your comments.

However, I think you are missing my point. Saying that Christianity has "parallels" with other religions is not the same as accusing it of direct borrowing.

I do not claim that Christ was modelled on or borrowed from Mithra or Zoroaster. (On the other hand, it seems that Zoroastrianism did have an impact (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html#PARALLELS) on Judaism during the "exile").

The point is that these stories address common themes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that these stories are mythic in character.

That, of course, doesn't by itself mean that they are not true.

However, insisting that other mythic stories can only be "damaging to the truth of Christianity" if there is "proven borrowing" prevents a false dichotomy, since it excludes the possibility that "Christianity" is based on re-cast mythical themes without there having been any actual direct borrowing.

Looking at the story of Christ, it seems reasonable to conclude that we have the story of a real individual that has been told in a version of events which has the characteristics of a myth...

E.g. even if we accept that Jesus was a real live person, we do not have to accept anything "miraculous" attributed to him without adequate corroborating evidence.

I hope that helps :-)

PTET



PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html)

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by PTET
[B]Hi GakuseiDon

Thanks for your comments.

However, I think you are missing my point. Saying that Christianity has "parallels" with other religions is not the same as accusing it of direct borrowing.
Fair enough, but my point is that you need to establish that those parallels exist in the first place. For example, some claim that Krishna was born of a virgin at Christmas (I know you don't) - but as that parallel doesn't exist in the first place, it can't really be used further on.

I do not claim that Christ was modelled on or borrowed from Mithra or Zoroaster. (On the other hand, it seems that Zoroastrianism did have an impact (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html#PARALLELS) on Judaism during the "exile").
Yes, I agree.

The point is that these stories address common themes. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that these stories are mythic in character.

That, of course, doesn't by itself mean that they are not true.
Again, I agree.

However, insisting that other mythic stories can only be "damaging to the truth of Christianity" if there is "proven borrowing" prevents a false dichotomy, since it excludes the possibility that "Christianity" is based on re-cast mythical themes without there having been any actual direct borrowing.

Looking at the story of Christ, it seems reasonable to conclude that we have the story of a real individual that has been told in a version of events which has the characteristics of a myth...

E.g. even if we accept that Jesus was a real live person, we do not have to accept anything "miraculous" attributed to him without adequate corroborating evidence.

Yes, but that would be true regardless of how unique Christianity is, one way or the other.

I think what you are talking about is "archetypes", which is an interesting topic in itself.

I have no problems with discussions about archetypes, but my point is that it is important to establish that the parallels exist before drawing any meaning from them.

[PTET]

GakuseiDon: I have no problems with discussions about archetypes, but my point is that it is important to establish that the parallels exist before drawing any meaning from them.

Well, the parallels clearly exist. We have the same archetypes appearing in mythologies all over the world. As I say in my page on Justin Martyr (http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/justin.html) and elsewhere, this was recognised from the earliest days of Christianity.

Do you not agree that they give reason to doubt the particular miraculous stories associated with Christianity?

PTET



PTET answers Tektonics (http://ptet.dubar.com/tek-ptet.html)

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by PTET
[b]GakuseiDon: I have no problems with discussions about archetypes, but my point is that it is important to establish that the parallels exist before drawing any meaning from them.

Well, the parallels clearly exist. We have the same archetypes appearing in mythologies all over the world. As I say in my page on Justin Martyr (http://ptet.dubar.com/ecw/justin.html) and elsewhere, this was recognised from the earliest days of Christianity.

Certainly, the parallels exist. There are parallels between, say, the deaths of Lincoln and Kennedy. What conclusions should we draw out of that?

Just saying that there are parallels doesn't mean much. Why shouldn't there be parallels?

Do you not agree that they give reason to doubt the particular miraculous stories associated with Christianity?

No, the sheer fact that there are parallels doesn't. You would need to show why the parallels are meaningful.

The parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy are addressed by the excellent Urban Legends site, snopes: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htmSo what are we to make of all this? How do we account for all these coincidences, no matter how superficial they may be, and why do so many people find this list so compelling?

The coincidences are easily explained as the simple product of mere chance. It's not difficult to find patterns and similarities between any two marginally-related sets of data, and coincidences similar in number and kind can be (and have been) found between many different pairs of Presidents. Our tendency to seek out patterns wherever we can stems from our desire to make sense of our world; to maintain a feeling that our universe is orderly and can be understood. (My emphasis)

Perhaps we should look at some specific examples of miracles. Let's look at Jesus healing people (you can choose another if you like). What parallels are there in other myths, and why are they meaningful?

[PTET]

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Perhaps we should look at some specific examples of miracles. Let's look at Jesus healing people (you can choose another if you like). What parallels are there in other myths, and why are they meaningful?

An excellent example. Any number of other religious leaders are or have been supposed to be able to effect healings. None of these claims have ever been verified scientifically. Is it not reasonable to conclude that "healing powers" are a characteristic expected of religious leaders? And that it is therefore reasonable to expect that stories would be told about Jesus effecting healings? And that there is therefore good reason to doubt the "healing" miracles attributed to Jesus?

PTET

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by PTET
An excellent example. Any number of other religious leaders are or have been supposed to be able to effect healings. None of these claims have ever been verified scientifically. Is it not reasonable to conclude that "healing powers" are a characteristic expected of religious leaders? And that it is therefore reasonable to expect that stories would be told about Jesus effecting healings? And that there is therefore good reason to doubt the "healing" miracles attributed to Jesus?


According to Vermes, miraculous displays were typical of Jewish prophets. It was expected of a "son of God" to establish the authority of his teachings/prophecies by demonstrating such power. Also, the appearance of the Messiah was expected to be accompanied by healings and miracles. For anyone to be taken seriously as the Messiah, these OT expectations would have to be fulfilled. Or at least be claimed to have been fulfilled.:)

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by PTET
An excellent example. Any number of other religious leaders are or have been supposed to be able to effect healings. None of these claims have ever been verified scientifically. Is it not reasonable to conclude that "healing powers" are a characteristic expected of religious leaders? And that it is therefore reasonable to expect that stories would be told about Jesus effecting healings? And that there is therefore good reason to doubt the "healing" miracles attributed to Jesus?

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Jesus didn't actually heal anyone, just that these stories grew around him as he was a religious leader? Or that Jesus performed healings (in the vein of Benny Hinn), but that, as Benny Hinn's miracles can be put down to the psychological state of the recipient, so can Jesus's?

I think you can see the difference: the first option says that Jesus (assuming He existed) never performed healings; the second says that Jesus COULD have performed healings, just not miraculous ones.

Editted to add: If miraculous healings could be shown to be possible, wouldn't that make the parallel with other religions irrelevant? That is, your use of parallels already assumes that the parallels are either unhistorical or non-miraculous events.

Also, you seem to have missed my questions on the Krishna-Christ parallels, and the Kennedy-Lincoln parallels. I'm interested in your thoughts on those.

[PTET]

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
[B]I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Jesus didn't actually heal anyone, just that these stories grew around him as he was a religious leader? Or that Jesus performed healings (in the vein of Benny Hinn), but that, as Benny Hinn's miracles can be put down to the psychological state of the recipient, so can Jesus's?


I am saying that any one of the possible explanations you list is preferable, in the absence of positive evidence miraculous evidence either by Jesus himself or by anyone else, to the proposal that Jesus really did perform miraculous healings.

I think you can see the difference: the first option says that Jesus (assuming He existed) never performed healings; the second says that Jesus COULD have performed healings, just not miraculous ones.


Both explanations are better, in the absence of actual evidence of the miraculous, than the one proposed by the Gospels.


Edited to add: If miraculous healings could be shown to be possible, wouldn't that make the parallel with other religions irrelevant? That is, your use of parallels already assumes that the parallels are either unhistorical or non-miraculous events.


It would not make arguments of parallels irrelevant at all. It would still give no grounds, in the absence of specific evidence linking these miracles to "Jesus", to conclude that Jesus's reported healings were real.


Also, you seem to have missed my questions on the Krishna-Christ parallels, and the Kennedy-Lincoln parallels. I'm interested in your thoughts on those.

Just because parallels exist, it does not mean that they are linked ;> The difference is, my friend, that you expect me to believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus are true, while those attributed to any other religion are not.

PTET

[Vorkosigan]

GD wrote: Also, you seem to have missed my questions on the Krishna-Christ parallels, and the Kennedy-Lincoln parallels. I'm interested in your thoughts on those.

These do not apply. The "parallels" between the OT and the NT do not work like the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, which are between two historical incidents. Often when we see an OT-NT parallel, it is between a literary event in the OT and a "historical one" in the NT. For example, Psalm 21, a literary creation, winds through the Passion Narrative.

Second, many parts of the NT show obvious dependence on creation from the OT, for example, where Matthew gets Zechariah mixed up when he puts Jesus on two animals entering Jerusalem.

Third, the OT is often cited in the NT parallel.

Fourth, the NT events fit into larger structures that are obviously constructed, for example, the fivefold miracle structure in Mark.

For these reasons, the OT and NT cannot be said to be "parallel." Instead, the NT must be viewed as created out of the OT.

Vorkosigan

[GakuseiDon]

GDon>>> I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Jesus didn't actually heal anyone, just that these stories grew around him as he was a religious leader? Or that Jesus performed healings (in the vein of Benny Hinn), but that, as Benny Hinn's miracles can be put down to the psychological state of the recipient, so can Jesus's?

I am saying that any one of the possible explanations you list is preferable, in the absence of positive evidence miraculous evidence either by Jesus himself or by anyone else, to the proposal that Jesus really did perform miraculous healings.

Both explanations are better, in the absence of actual evidence of the miraculous, than the one proposed by the Gospels.


Then, if miraculous healings are a priori considered impossible, then why worry about parallels? Haven't you already ruled out miracles as impossible? Of what use are parallels, then?

It seems to me that, if you want to use parallels, you need to start with the premise that miracle healings MAY be possible. In which case, you can ask, "If Jesus's miracle healings are true, then why not those other healing myths true? Alternatively, if those other healing myths are false, why not Jesus's?"

The problem is that I don't know of any Christian doctrine that says that miracle healings outside Christianity have never occured. So there is no need at all for an "either-or" situation. As you yourself show Justin Martyr pointing out, a Christian could believe that a non-Christian holy man could perform miracles, either through the actions of God or the Devil.

I think your use of parallels fails, as either being irrelevent or a strawman. Perhaps just leaving it at "there is no scientific evidence for miracles" is a stronger and more rational position.

Just because parallels exist, it does not mean that they are linked ;> The difference is, my friend, that you expect me to believe that the miracles attributed to Jesus are true, while those attributed to any other religion are not.

Actually, no I don't. I'm hoping you see your argument as (my apologies) badly thought out. Remember, in the OP you asked for criticism/comments!

In my eyes, you've fallen into the same trap that creationists fall into: a willingness to accept evidence from uncritical sources to support your beliefs, i.e. selecting the 'facts' to fit the theory, not the theory to fit the facts. Maybe that's a bit unfair, but I'm hoping you prove me wrong!

BTW, your website (http://ptet.dubar.com/christian-paganism.html) still says that Krishna's mother was a virgin called "Maia". This isn't true. His mother was called Devaki, and he was her 8th son, so she definitely wasn't a virgin when he was born. (Even the religioustolerence website says this).

[GakuseiDon]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
These do not apply. The "parallels" between the OT and the NT do not work like the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, which are between two historical incidents. Often when we see an OT-NT parallel, it is between a literary event in the OT and a "historical one" in the NT. For example, Psalm 21, a literary creation, winds through the Passion Narrative.

Well, PTET and I were talking about Christ-Krishna parallels... but good points, Vork. I think that underlines what I was saying about "meaningful" parallels. I agree that the parallels between the OT and NT are well established, and some of the historical events in the NT seem to have been created (or at least reworked) from the OT. Perhaps the OT-NT connection may be a better area for PTET to investigate than the Pagan-NT one.