A myth that dynamites the history

[Attonitus]

The thesis of the Jesus Myth seems interesting, but she has some dark points. Do exist a parallel of the supposed irruption of a myth in the history? In what culture or religion? What means they had the Jesus myth makers 2000 years ago for to achieve a forgery to bear the storming of textual criticizes until today :confused:

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Attonitus
The thesis of the Jesus Myth seems interesting, but she has some dark points. Do exist a parallel of the supposed irruption of a myth in the history? In what culture or religion? What means they had the Jesus myth makers 2000 years ago for to achieve a forgery to bear the storming of textual criticizes until today :confused:

What country are you from?

[Attonitus]

Spain. Sorry for my bad english :o

[Malachi151]

No problema, pero por favor repeate tu pregunta en español. Puede se más fácil comprender tu punto.

I figured it was probably Spanish or French due to the sentence structure :) Your English is far better than my Spanish, but it may be better if you post your question in Spanish.

Many people speak Spanish so we may be better able to understand your points in your native language.

Gracias mi amigo :D

[Sensei Meela]

Here I go, speaking for another poster again...(man, I hate it when I do that!!)...

The thesis of the Jesus Myth seems interesting, but she has some dark points.
Some things about the Jesus Myth are not clear.

Do exist a parallel of the supposed irruption of a myth in the history?
Are there parallels to the emergence of Christianity?

In what culture or religion?
[obvious]

What means they had the Jesus myth makers 2000 years ago for to achieve a forgery to bear the storming of textual criticizes until today
How could the alleged myth-makers from 2000 years ago make a 'myth' that so successfully withstands criticisms?

Espero que lo fue correcta! [lo siento para mi espanol]

[rlogan]

Es un fiesta de espaniol!

Soy allegro. Yo ayuda.

Nosotros no sabemos mucho acerca de otras religiones

Pero aqui:

Native American Myths (http://www.earthbow.com/native/)

El interior usted encontrara quatro ciento mitos de indios nativos.

Las personas se olvidan acerca de todas las otras religiones porque estas personas fueron conquistados.

Cuando los romanos adoptaron la cristiandad entonces todas las otras religiones se destruyeron.

Durante muchos siglos los que se opusieron la cristiandad se mato.

Habia muchas religiones en este continente antes europeos vinieron.

Pero otra vez, ellos mataron los que no creerian.

Asi que no es porque el cuento es bueno. Es porque ellos lo matan si usted no conviene.

Hay algunas partes muy estupidas a este cuento de Jesus. Muchas partes son contradictorias.


De todos modos, yo le di algunos mitos nativos arriba. Tan por supuesto hay muchos ejemplos en la historia. Estos estan muertos ahora porque nuestro gobierno los mato con el ejercito.

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by Malachi151
No problema, pero por favor repeate tu pregunta en español. Puede se más fácil comprender tu punto.

I figured it was probably Spanish or French due to the sentence structure :) Your English is far better than my Spanish, but it may be better if you post your question in Spanish.

Many people speak Spanish so we may be better able to understand your points in your native language.

Gracias mi amigo :D

Hi Malachi151,

Gracias, pido disculpas al foro por plantear mi pregunta en español.

La tesis del Mito Jesús parece interesante, pero tiene algunos puntos oscuros. ¿Existe algún paralelo en la literatura comparada acerca de la supuesta irrupción de un mito en la historia, tal y como se muestra en los Evangelios? Si es asi ¿en qué cultura o religión? ¿De que medios disponian los creadores del Mito Jesús hace 2000 años para crear tal falsificacion que ha aguantado los embates de la critica textual hasta el dia de la fecha?

Greetings,

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
Espero que lo fue correcta! [lo siento para mi espanol]

Yes, thank you !

Regards,

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by rlogan
Es un fiesta de espaniol!

Thank you!

Originally posted by rlogan
Soy allegro. Yo ayuda.

Nosotros no sabemos mucho acerca de otras religiones

Pero aqui:

Native American Myths (http://www.earthbow.com/native/)

El interior usted encontrara quatro ciento mitos de indios nativos.

Las personas se olvidan acerca de todas las otras religiones porque estas personas fueron conquistados.

Cuando los romanos adoptaron la cristiandad entonces todas las otras religiones se destruyeron.

Cierto, el cristianismo se impone en el Imperio Romano como consecuencia del golpe militar de Constantino

Originally posted by rlogan
Durante muchos siglos los que se opusieron la cristiandad se mato.

Habia muchas religiones en este continente antes europeos vinieron.

Pero otra vez, ellos mataron los que no creerian.

Asi que no es porque el cuento es bueno. Es porque ellos lo matan si usted no conviene.

Hay algunas partes muy estupidas a este cuento de Jesus. Muchas partes son contradictorias.

Cierto. Existen muchas contradicciones, pero si la critica se hubiese aplicado sobre otros textos religiosos como se ha aplicado sobre los evangelios, esos otros textos ya solo serÃ_an historia.

DOriginally posted by rlogan
De todos modos, yo le di algunos mitos nativos arriba. Tan por supuesto hay muchos ejemplos en la historia. Estos estan muertos ahora porque nuestro gobierno los mato con el ejercito.

Si, también el ejercito español destrozó culturas y religiones milenarias en el Sur de América, e impuso el catolicismo. Pero esa no es mi pregunta. El Mito de Jesús tal y como se describe en los Evangelios es atÃ_pico, no existe, creo, otro paralelo en la historia en que el mito sea introducido en un concreto contexto histórico y cultural, en este caso el judio, que coincide bastante bien con la descripción que Flavio Josefo nos ofrece en sus obras.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Attonitus

Pero esa no es mi pregunta. El Mito de Jesús tal y como se describe en los Evangelios es atßpico, no existe, creo, otro paralelo en la historia en que el mito sea introducido en un concreto contexto histórico y cultural, en este caso el judio, que coincide bastante bien con la descripción que Flavio Josefo nos ofrece en sus obras.

Claro. Sabe usted Josephus es una falsificacion? Hay el desacuerdo acerca de esto. Hay dos entradas. Uno considera a Jesus. Uno considera a James.

Hay literatura aqui:
early christian writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com)

Busque Flavius Josephus.

Jesus no era famoso en el primer siglo. Tomo mas de 100 anos.

Los cristianos cambiaron documentos importantes mas tarde. Por eso nosotros no vemos a Jesus en otras escrituras.


Edited to add: Discussing the Josephus interpolations. I'm with Vinnie here on both being complete fabrications. ;)

[Attonitus]

Claro. Sabe usted Josephus es una falsificacion? Hay el desacuerdo acerca de esto. Hay dos entradas. Uno considera a Jesus. Uno considera a James.

Yes, I know the testimonium flavianum (whose authenticity is discussed), but here I don't speak of the testimonium; I say that the mythical Jesus is born, lives and dies in a concrete socio-cultural and historical environment that is very well-known thanks to Josephus works. Robert M. Price speaking of the topic says that Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan, but doesn't exist information on where those myths have been born, lived, neither dead; it is not the same type of myths, the mythical Jesus is atypical in this sense.

Jesus no era famoso en el primer siglo. Tomo mas de 100 anos.

Well, something less (and I don't speak of Paul), GMark 65-80 CE.

Los cristianos cambiaron documentos importantes mas tarde. Por eso nosotros no vemos a Jesus en otras escrituras.

Yes, but the dates are not manipulated, in 65 CE GMark speech of Jesus (and maybe the oral tradition is previous).

Thank you,

[Malachi151]

I don't know Spanish well enough to make my points in Spanish, but maybe you can understand this in English, someone can translate it.

There are several factors as to why the myth has held up so long, and also the fact is that the myth has been criticized strongly for 200 years now as well.

Firstly you have the Catholic Church to consider.

The Catholic Church held almost all the political and cultural power in Europe from about 400 CE until 1600 CE, and has maintained a strong influence since that time as well.

The Catholic Church dominated all aspects of life in Europe for over 1,000 years and during this time of course they were able to enforce the belief in this myth and keep society too ignorant to criticize it.

Now there is another issue. Prior to the invention of the Printing Press no one except Catholic clergy ever saw or read the Bible. There was no way to criticize it at that point. The Printing Press was not invented until the 1400s.

There was almost no knowledge outside of the knowledge presented by the Church until the Crusades, and that knowledge didn't get back to Europe until around the 1200s.

From the 1200s it took until the 1500s for real criticism of the Church to build.

By the 1700s people were starting to criticize the myth of Jesus itself. The American, Thomas Paine was one of the first to put such a criticism into print in his book, The Age of Reason.

You should look for a Spanish version of The Age of Reason.

[Attonitus]

By the 1700s people were starting to criticize the myth of Jesus itself. The American, Thomas Paine was one of the first to put such a criticism into print in his book, The Age of Reason.

I live in Spain, but I'm not Catholic neither Christian. The Jesus Seminary is not Catholic, but they try to find the historical Jesus. Morton Smith an atheist, concludes his book on Jesus in Tübingen, the same place in that my dear Strauss wrote its great work. And I believe that enough participants in this forum are not Catholic but they sustain the existence of a historical Jesus.

Greetings,

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Robert M. Price speaking of the topic says that Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan, but doesn't exist information on where those myths have been born, lived, neither dead;

Not true. His hometown is in Illinois and proudly proclaims itself the birthplace of Superman.:)

http://www.metropolischamber.com/metropolis.htm

...it is not the same type of myths, the mythical Jesus is atypical in this sense.

Not so different from the first story about Jesus (i.e. Mark). Jesus shows up fully grown and ready to be baptized. We get snapshots of a ministry that sometimes incorrectly describes the geography. Then he is arrested and executed. We have to wait until two guys rewrite this first story before the "atypical" details are added.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Attonitus
I live in Spain, but I'm not Catholic neither Christian. The Jesus Seminary is not Catholic, but they try to find the historical Jesus. Morton Smith an atheist, concludes his book on Jesus in Tübingen, the same place in that my dear Strauss wrote its great work. And I believe that enough participants in this forum are not Catholic but they sustain the existence of a historical Jesus.

Greetings,

Ah yes. I myself think that "Jesus" may have been real.

Obviously though at least parts of the stories about him ar false.

The question then becomes, how much is real and how much is false? Do you assume that all the things that are not supernatural really happened?

I think that the Jesus story is likely based on real events and a real person or people, but to say that "Jesus was real" becomes difficult even if you discount the supernatural things because even if the story is "based on a real person" we don't know how much of it is real and how much is made up.

The Jesus in the story is definately not completely real.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Yes, I know the testimonium flavianum (whose authenticity is discussed), but here I don't speak of the testimonium; I say that the mythical Jesus is born, lives and dies in a concrete socio-cultural and historical environment that is very well-known thanks to Josephus works. Robert M. Price speaking of the topic says that Superboy is just as mythical as Santa Claus and Peter Pan, but doesn't exist information on where those myths have been born, lived, neither dead; it is not the same type of myths, the mythical Jesus is atypical in this sense.


Claro. Gracias. Es mucho divertido.

Por supuesto, usted es correcto. Acerca de es extraordinario. Pero solo en tamano.

Muchos personas aqui creen que una persona historica era necesaria. Habia las iglesias separadas. Como consolidar? Por la autoridad. La autoridad de la historia falsa.


Well, something less (and I don't speak of Paul), GMark 65-80 CE.


Estas fechas son escogidas por los creyentes. Muchos eruditos piensan es mas tarde. Yo no soy erudito. Un persona aqui de nobre "Spin".

El Escrita mucho acerca de esto aqui.


Yes, but the dates are not manipulated, in 65 CE GMark speech of Jesus (and maybe the oral tradition is previous).


Sea probablemente despues 70. Yo no soy experto. Pero esto es la fecha mas temprana.

Hay un "hilo" en este ahora. Lea los comentarios por la "Vuelta".

Hay un Vinnie denominado tambien. Nacido de un perro. El sueno con los camellos. Olore como una cabra.

;) Bromeando por supuesto. Somos amigos aqui.

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The Jesus in the story is definately not completely real.

The Jesus Myth theory is truly minority, only five scholars defends seriously this position: G. A. Wells (?), Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegård and maybe Hyam Maccoby.

I don't know if Jesus in the history is definitely not completely real, but I believe that the Jesus Myth theory in the scholarship is definitely irreal.

Best regards,

[spin]

Originally posted by Attonitus
The Jesus Myth theory is truly minority, only five scholars defends seriously this position: G. A. Wells (?), Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price, Alvar Ellegård and maybe Hyam Maccoby.

If numbers meant something then Richard Nixon must have been a nice guy. But he was a stronzo (if you'll excuse my Italian). I neither support nor reject the mythological analysis: I don't think there's enough evidence to judge. Therefore I think there are a lot of people in the historical fairyland thinking there must have been a historical Jesus.

I don't know if Jesus in the history is definitely not completely real, but I believe that the Jesus Myth theory in the scholarship is definitely irreal.

Most real historians avoid the subject and leave it to religious scholars as it is irrelevant to history and only meaningful, in the historians' eyes, to religionists anyway.

Let me just challenge you to stop the numbers game and demonstrate through historical methods that there was a Jesus. You know what history was like in Russia during the communist regime: if you didn't say the official things you didn't get published. This is the old fact Orwell wrote about: who controls the present controls the past. xians controlled the present for a long time. Just look at the invention of Ebion, the leader of the Ebionite sect according to Tertullian and various other church fathers. Turning unreality into history is not a strange event at all in the context.

So, the challenge again: show me that there was a Jesus. I've looked at the evidence such as the Roman writers after 100 CE, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny II. Useless. Josephus testimony? You know what that's worth. The gospels? When were they written? No-one knows. You just get hopes, like Vinnie's silly 70-80 CE for Mark.

Do you want to talk evidence or count opinions?


spin

[chapka]

Originally posted by Attonitus
The thesis of the Jesus Myth seems interesting, but she has some dark points. Do exist a parallel of the supposed irruption of a myth in the history?

There are constant, pervasive parallels. Many people still believe that Columbus discovered America because he believed the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat, and that Jackie Robinson was the first black player in major league baseball.

For a few good examples, take this quiz (http://www.summitassociatesinc.com/cgi-bin/quiz.pl/ask/quest.html)

These aren't as longstanding as the Jesus idea yet, but only because they're still relevant. Romulus and Remus lasted as long as the Roman empire, and the Jesus story will last as long as the Christian religion.

Sorry for the American-centric response, but they're the myths I grew up with. I'd be very curious to know what equivalent myths there are about Spanish history if you care to post some.

Oh, and guys, I think the OP was using the word "myth" in a more general than technical sense, so the "inflated historical jesus vs. no jesus at all" stuff may be OT. But I don't speak spanish, so I may be way off base.

[Attonitus]

I neither support nor reject the mythological analysis: I don't think there's enough evidence to judge.

Then you neither supports or reject the historical analysis?

Therefore I think there are a lot of people in the historical fairyland thinking there must have been a historical Jesus. Most real historians avoid the subject and leave it to religious scholars as it is irrelevant to history and only meaningful, in the historians' eyes, to religionists anyway.

Facts o comments?

Let me just challenge you to stop the numbers game and demonstrate through historical methods that there was a Jesus

I don't want to demonstrate with historical methods something that I have not affirmed. I simply point that in connection with Jesus if the historical method has problems, the mythical method has them even bigger, and that the mythical analysis is marginal in the scholarship. Simply facts no comments.

You just get hopes, like Vinnie's silly 70-80 CE for Mark

Well, Vinnie is optimistic :)

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by chapka
There are constant, pervasive parallels. Many people still believe that Columbus discovered America because he believed the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat, and that Jackie Robinson was the first black player in major league baseball.

Sorry, but do I believe that we are not speaking of the same thing, or does somebody it sustains that Jackie Robinson has never existed? :(

[chapka]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Sorry, but do I believe that we are not speaking of the same thing, or does somebody it sustains that Jackie Robinson has never existed?

Well, there's Moses and Abraham--as far as I know they never really existed in anything like their current form. Also Betsy Ross, King Arthur, and any number of Catholic saints.

And I do think that the examples I gave are parallels. Myths about events are more common than those about persons, but I think the methods of formation and perpetuation are the same. They still represent a myth that has become a part of history.

It could be a language issue--in English "myth" as a noun doesn't generally refer to a person, but to a story. What's commonly called the "Jesus Myth" story would in vernacular English more commonly called the "Mythical Jesus" theory.

[spinoza]

King Arthur and Robin Hood come to mind as something like what I think you are trying to address (oops, Chapka beat me to King Arthur). Beowulf might be such a person about whom myth/history are unclear. The characters of the Trojan war might be others. The existence of Homer himself is debatable. Gilgamesh? Saints, such as Patrick, Columba or Brendan? (oops, Chapka beat me again -- I should learn to read!) The Roman kings?

[spin]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Then you neither supports or reject the historical analysis?

No. There is no historical analysis on the subject.



Facts o comments?

??

I don't want to demonstrate with historical methods something that I have not affirmed.

Good.

I simply point that in connection with Jesus if the historical method has problems, the mythical method has them even bigger, and that the mythical analysis is marginal in the scholarship. Simply facts no comments.

I don't know what criteria you can use to make one preferable to the other.

Well, Vinnie is optimistic :)

No. He's committed.


spin

[spin]

Originally posted by Attonitus to Chapka
Sorry, but do I believe that we are not speaking of the same thing, or does somebody it sustains that Jackie Robinson has never existed? :(

The reason why I mentioned Ebion earlier was because he was wholely a xian invention. I don't think any scholar would want to redeem him. There are different forces operating behind the historical attempts to redeem Jesus for history.


spin

[rlogan]

"Facts o comments"

means do you have facts on your side, or are you merely spouting off your opinion.

for example, nobody doubts the Didache. Primarily due to the date written in invisible ink on the top left of page 1. But I think too the irrefutable references to external events. Um, er - ah I'd put it safely conservatively at 44.

Therefore I'd also have to put Mark at the latest 38-39.

Anyone disagreeing with that is a foaming at the mouth myth hooligan.

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by rlogan
for example, nobody doubts the Didache. Primarily due to the date written in invisible ink on the top left of page 1. But I think too the irrefutable references to external events. Um, er - ah I'd put it safely conservatively at 44.

Therefore I'd also have to put Mark at the latest 38-39.

Yes, I remember! You know Q?. A sayings source with sayings attributed to an historical Jesus. Hence, while not biographical, it is evidence to the historical existence of Jesus in 40 CE (certainly not in 38-39) ;)

I believe to remember that Dale Allison I publish something similar a while ago...

Regards,

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by spin
The reason why I mentioned Ebion earlier was because he was wholely a xian invention.

I agree with you

Regards,

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Yes, I remember! You know Q?. A sayings source with sayings attributed to an historical Jesus. Hence, while not biographical, it is evidence to the historical existence of Jesus in 40 CE (certainly not in 38-39) ;)


Unless it originally started out as a collection of unattributed sayings that were later attributed to "Jesus" along with other elaborations.

[spin]

Originally posted by spin
The reason why I mentioned Ebion earlier was because he was wholely a xian invention.

Responded to by Attonitus
I agree with you
It means that you cannot make a special plea for the probable historicity of Jesus without any historical documents.

And I don't think any of rlogan's comments in his last letter were serious. He says that "nobody doubts the Didache" followed by an amusing comment about the date written invisible ink on page 1. Which manuscript was that rlogan, old buddy?


spin

[godfry n. glad]

Similar "eruptions" of mythos? Do they need be salvific myths?

How about the Buddha stories?

What about the tales associated with Lao Tsu?

Did anybody think of Krishna?

And, then, there's the Mithraic mysteries...almost contemporaneous with the rise of Christianity...a predecessor, which, if the latest theory by Ulansey is anywhere near accurate, preceded Christianity by about 250 years in near the same area.

Then, there's Zarathustra (Zoroaster).

And, what about the reoccuring Mahdi mythos?

Even Confucius has come under deconstruction as a possible mythic construct.

godfry n. glad

[NOGO]

Many people still believe that Columbus discovered America because he believed the world was round when everyone else thought it was flat,


Yes some still believe that because it is a fact.
Most people in 1492 believe the earth to be flat.
The ones that believed the earth was a ball also believed that there could not be anybody on the other side because they would have to walk around upside down.

Copernicus was accused of "sending the earth off into space".
So flat or no flat the earth was not in "space".

The word Mediterranean means the middle of the earth. It was thought that the sea by that name was in the centre of the world.
All maps were drawn with that in mind showing Jerusalem as the ansolute centre. All maps in the middle ages were drawn from a flat earth perspective.

Of course the idea that the earth was a sphere was known from ancient Greeks. Among literate people in Europe the possibility of a spherical earth was therefore known. But what proof did anyone have?

Columbus was seeking another route to the orient. It was a business adventure. But most people at the time did not believe this to be possible and for the rest is was only a theoretical possibility.

[NOGO]

rlogan
Therefore I'd also have to put Mark at the latest 38-39.


Most people would disagree.

What I don't understand is the word "Therefore" above.
It makes it sound like a conclusion.
Conclusion to what?

Mark wrote during or right after the rebellion of 66-70 AD.

Mark 13:19
"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.

"until now"

When is this "now" which Mark speaks of?

1) the time Jesus spoke ?
2) the time Mark wrote ?
3) the time of the event which is refered to?

I give you two guesses.

[chapka]

Originally posted by NOGO
Of course the idea that the earth was a sphere was known from ancient Greeks. Among literate people in Europe the possibility of a spherical earth was therefore known. But what proof did anyone have?

Anyone who had ever been on a boat knew the earth was round. That's why there is a horizon. In my understanding, Columbus' dispute was about circumference, not shape. Columbus thought that the world was small enough that the Orient would be about where North America is.

Do you have any evidence for the Columbus vs. the flat earthers story that predates Washington Irving? All the historians I've read have pretty much agreed that Irving made the thing up out of whole cloth.

[NOGO]

Attonitus
What means they had the Jesus myth makers 2000 years ago for to achieve a forgery to bear the storming of textual criticizes until today


First Christianity does not stand or fall on the HJ issue.

I am no longer a Christian not because Jesus did not exist but because I refute what Christianity teaches.

1. That the death of one man saved us all
2. that God needed a human sacrifice to forgive us
3. that humans did anything to required salvation.
4. the concept of sin
(David killed a man and declared - "I have sinned against the Lord."
I call it a crime against the community and not a sin against the Lord.)
5. The concept that one must believe in order to be saved.
etc
etc


Second the myth makers were not out to fool people.
These stories were written in good faith
if there was any deceit it was done in the fourth century by people who were not only believers but were also interested in power. Some evidence was then destroyed other may have been altered.

My personal opinion is that we are dealing with two stories which were merged together. Thus the HJ and the MJ were confused and merged into one faith.

The real answer is that the evidence left behind is insufficient and that is why were are still talking about.

One must also add that the day people stop believing in Christianity will also be the day when the issue of the HJ vs the MJ will also die.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by spin
It means that you cannot make a special plea for the probable historicity of Jesus without any historical documents.

And I don't think any of rlogan's comments in his last letter were serious. He says that "nobody doubts the Didache" followed by an amusing comment about the date written invisible ink on page 1. Which manuscript was that rlogan, old buddy?


spin

yes, the spin-meister correctly points out I wuz Spoofin'.

In great anticipation I await the nefarious Vinnie's positng on the dating of Mark.

I am curious to see if he puts the Didache in there. I don't see how any reference outside the dubious texts themselves gets us earlier than about 124 from the Apology of Aristides. That is, I don't see how we can confirm a written gospel until then:

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

Another Peter Kirby website attraction (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html)

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by spin
And I don't think any of rlogan's comments in his last letter were serious. He says that "nobody doubts the Didache" followed by an amusing comment about the date written invisible ink on page 1. Which manuscript was that rlogan, old buddy?
spin

Of course, serious no, rlogan simply exemplified about my spouting opinion, a clever guy this rlogan ;)

[Attonitus]

Originally posted by NOGO
First Christianity does not stand or fall on the HJ issue.

Or maybe HJ does not stand or fall on the Xianity?. Unfortunately HJ was only Jewish and he never know to anybody Xian ;)

[spin]

Originally posted by rlogan
In great anticipation I await the nefarious Vinnie's positng on the dating of Mark.

I am curious to see if he puts the Didache in there. I don't see how any reference outside the dubious texts themselves gets us earlier than about 124 from the Apology of Aristides.

Perhaps you may be interested in the dating information provided by the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

As to the date and occasion of the "Apology" there are opinion of opinion. While some critics hold, with Eusebius, that it was presented to Hadrian, others maintain that it was written during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).

That is, I don't see how we can confirm a written gospel until then:

"The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it."

Are you assuming that "gospel" implies written source? It is merely an old English translation by parts of the Greek eu-aggelion, good message, good news. Does that imply written source or oral tradition?


spin

[Peter Kirby]

We have had a detailed and extensive discussion of the Aristides passage here already. I will look it up when search is working.

best,
Peter Kirby

[spin]

Originally posted by Attonitus
Or maybe HJ does not stand or fall on the Xianity?. Unfortunately HJ was only Jewish and he never know to anybody Xian ;)

You seem to be assuming things you need to demonstrate.

What makes you think that if there were a Jesus person -- which is in doubt, given the precedent of Ebion -- that he "was only Jewish"? The earliest indications of his life come from the undated gospel of Mark, which gives evidence to say that the work was written in Rome or some other strictly Roman centre and its pseudonymous author given a Latin name. Why does this Jewish guy of yours quote from the LXX, as is the case in the gospel of Mark? Why does the writer mix dialects of Aramaic when giving his Jesus his last words?


spin

[rlogan]

Originally posted by spin
Perhaps you may be interested in the dating information provided by the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

As to the date and occasion of the "Apology" there are opinion of opinion. While some critics hold, with Eusebius, that it was presented to Hadrian, others maintain that it was written during the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).



Are you assuming that "gospel" implies written source? It is merely an old English translation by parts of the Greek eu-aggelion, good message, good news. Does that imply written source or oral tradition?


spin


I'll admit I'm following Eusebius here. There is some danger in that. But at least it is an external source that has
some means of establishing a date.

I am saying that if one starts pushing it earlier than this, then one is beginning to speculate too much.

In the quote I provided (english translation, anyway) it does say "read", so I infer written gospel. Which gospel that is remains open to question.

One would propose oral tradition before written in any case, yes. The problem is too many of them, necessitating a canon.

[spin]

Originally posted by rlogan
I'll admit I'm following Eusebius here. There is some danger in that. But at least it is an external source that has
some means of establishing a date.

I am saying that if one starts pushing it earlier than this, then one is beginning to speculate too much.

And I was attempting to say that 124 CE may be speculation as well.

In the quote I provided (english translation, anyway) it does say "read", so I infer written gospel.[/B][/QUOTE]

So, unless I can see the original here, I guess we have to trust the translator.


spin

[rlogan]

Originally posted by spin
And I was attempting to say that 124 CE may be speculation as well.


So, unless I can see the original here, I guess we have to trust the translator.


spin

Yes, but don't take 124 to be "my" date. I don't believe there is any controversy about it being from the Church Forgery Mill.

So it is a matter when it was written, and the earliest candidate date is 124.

It isn't wise to put this forward as the date certain for any specific gospel, no.


True about the translator. That would be a pretty outragous mistranslation. In keeping with church tradition in general, I suppose...

[spin]

At the beginning of Aristides' Apology we find a reference to "Hadrian the King on behalf of reverence for God. . . . All-powerful Caesar Titus Hadrianus Antoninus"

The emperor Hadrian's name was Publius Aelius Hadrianus. The throne name of Antoninus Pius? -- Titus Aelius Caesar Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius. Apparently we are not dealing with the Hadrian that we know, but Antoninus Pius, who had taken the names Aelius Hadrianus when he assumed the throne.

The mention of Antoninus Pius should put the apology after AP's accession.


spin

[rlogan]

So 138-161.

Hmm. Thank you for pointing that out. So what the hell is wrong with Eusebius here?

I need to look into that...

[rlogan]

OK Spin, so i dug up Eusebius Hist. Eccl. Ch IV. :

3.2 is about Quadratus. (Who speaks about people Jesus healed still playing polo and singin' rock and roll).

Then two lonely sentences about Aristides:

"Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons."


Most of his work gives fuller references to external events. This just sticks out there almost begging for the label. You know what label. Dare I say it?

[spin]

OK Spin, so i dug up Eusebius Hist. Eccl. Ch IV. :

3.2 is about Quadratus. (Who speaks about people Jesus healed still playing polo and singin' rock and roll).

Then two lonely sentences about Aristides:

"Aristides also, a believer earnestly devoted to our religion, left, like Quadratus, an apology for the faith, addressed to Adrian. His work, too, has been preserved even to the present day by a great many persons."

Most of his work gives fuller references to external events. This just sticks out there almost begging for the label. You know what label. Dare I say it?

Wooncha lerv summing tayngible jest fur wernce, huh?


spin

[rlogan]

Wooncha lerv summing tayngible jest fur wernce, huh?


spin

OK, let's say this passage is wrong for argument, and given the reference you provided that is reasonable.

So there are a couple of options here. One is he's wrong and has an agenda. Another option is interpolation.

It cannot be a single interpolation because the title of that section is plural. So that is a larger interpolation. Could be the whole thing.

But I'm so out of my element here. I'm a number cruncher, spin. Ignorant of the surrounding history and the other anchors that would let me say "interpolation".

[spin]

OK, let's say this passage is wrong for argument, and given the reference you provided that is reasonable.

So there are a couple of options here. One is he's wrong and has an agenda. Another option is interpolation.

It cannot be a single interpolation because the title of that section is plural. So that is a larger interpolation. Could be the whole thing.

But I'm so out of my element here. I'm a number cruncher, spin. Ignorant of the surrounding history and the other anchors that would let me say "interpolation".

Of course if you take the section out then you have no dating reference at all, do you?


spin

[rlogan]

Of course if you take the section out then you have no dating reference at all, do you?


spin

Not from this, no.

I am not sure what to say about this chapter. The document I am reading has chapter headings before each book:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-09.htm#TopOfPage

I do not know about the original. My goodness, that would be a lot of doctoring. Much more than in the TF.

[spin]

Not from this, no.

I am not sure what to say about this chapter. The document I am reading has chapter headings before each book:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-09.htm#TopOfPage

I do not know about the original. My goodness, that would be a lot of doctoring. Much more than in the TF.

I was talking about Aristides' work. You really can't trust Eusebius (or anyone else writing 200 years later) as a source of historical information in Aristides' era. He could as easily have read the intro in Aristides' apology and decided that it was the Hadrian being talked about and not been aware of Antoninus Pius's throne name.


spin

[Attonitus]

Why does this Jewish guy of yours quote from the LXX, as is the case in the gospel of Mark? Why does the writer mix dialects of Aramaic when giving his Jesus his last words? spin

Do you know that language it was spoken in the Palestine of the first century?

[spin]

Do you know that language it was spoken in the Palestine of the first century?

1. No. There are articles written on the language of Mt's and Mk's last words for Jesus and of course we have the original Hebrew.

2. What makes you think it's 1st century Aramaic?


spin

[Attonitus]

1. No. There are articles written on the language of Mt's and Mk's last words for Jesus and of course we have the original Hebrew.
2. What makes you think it's 1st century Aramaic? spin

Interesting. The last words of Jesus in GMark is indeed those of the LXX omitting prosxes moi and substituting ina ti por eis ti. According Taylor if GMark it uses a Palestinian tradition it is natural that it uses the arameic form, but it is more probable that the sentence was pronounced in Hebrew because the comment of the presents Ide Êleian phônei only it is comprehensible if Jesus screamed : Êlei, Êlei o Êli, Êli y no Êloi.

Regards

[spin]

Interesting. The last words of Jesus in GMark is indeed those of the LXX omitting prosxes moi and substituting ina ti por eis ti.

The Hebrew has no equivalent to the Greek addition in the LXX and amusingly the Vulgate cuts both ways for there are variants which seem to have it and others don't.

I don't see any functional difference between ina ti and eis ti. They seem to be variants of preference rather than substantive ones I would have thought.

According Taylor if GMark it uses a Palestinian tradition it is natural that it uses the arameic form, but it is more probable that the sentence was pronounced in Hebrew because the comment of the presents Ide Êleian phônei only it is comprehensible if Jesus screamed : Êlei, Êlei o Êli, Êli y no Êloi.

The usual problem we need to face is why Mk has hloi hloi and not something more phonetically acceptable to us. The explanation you give better fits Mt's correction of Mk.

Also interesting about the text is that it is not the Hebrew form of the verb "forsake". The Hebrew has `ZBTNY, perhaps "azbatani", whereas the gospels have SaBaXTaNY.

Oh and the Peshitta gives yet another version, 'YL 'YL LMN' SBQTNY, so you get yet another variation.

(I don't know Taylor, but the claim that "if GMark it uses a Palestinian tradition it is natural that it uses the aramaic form" is no longer "natural": the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Hebrew was alive and diversifying in Palestine at the time.)


spin

[Attonitus]

The usual problem we need to face is why Mk has hloi hloi and not something more phonetically acceptable to us. The explanation you give better fits Mt's correction of Mk.

Also interesting about the text is that it is not the Hebrew form of the verb "forsake". The Hebrew has `ZBTNY, perhaps "azbatani", whereas the gospels have SaBaXTaNY.

Oh and the Peshitta gives yet another version, 'YL 'YL LMN' SBQTNY, so you get yet another variation. spin

Hi spin,

This seems simply a mistransliteration in the Greek text.
Here GMark not quote the Tanach. Where is the problem?

[spin]

Hi spin,

This seems simply a mistransliteration in the Greek text.
Here GMark not quote the Tanach. Where is the problem?

What Mk cites is closely related to the Hebrew. It didn't come from the LXX, otherwise it would have had the extra phrase. But it is not good enough to simply say it is a mistranslation: it needs to be accounted for and should be seen as the earliest form of the nt Greek, from which Mt modified it to a more Hebrew-like hli, hli, while leaving the rest of the Aramaic form.


spin