Kata Markon

["Antonio Jerez" <antonio.jerez AT privat.utfors.se>]

>Antonio Jerez wrote:

>...the gospel writers worked very much like Josephus. Josephus 
>invents dialogues for his heroes (a standard feature of "history" in 
>antiquity) and blends myths about Moses and others with real 
>history. The problem for a historian is to disentangle history from 
>fiction.


>>Can you provide examples of this in Josephus?

Are we starting a beginners course in Josephus? With all due respect, but I 
don't have time for this
kind of nonsense.

>
>>None of the authors of the gospels appear to have been a disciple of
>  >Jesus himself. But even if they were it doesn't take away the fictional
>>character of much in the gospels.
>
>  >>Petitio principii!  You are begging the question in exactly the
>>>circular manner of Mr. Alward.
>
>I don´t know in what way I am using circular logic. If claiming that 
>accounts from antiquity talking about Godmen walking on water appear 
>to be fictional - specially when they smell of being blueprinted out 
>of the OT - then you could just accuse all historians of using 
>circular logic when they dismiss such tales as history.

>>When the same statement is used both as a premise and a conclusion or 
when one of the premises could not be known to be true unless the 
conclusion were first assumed to be true, then you have begged the 
>>question ("Petitio Principii").  For example,

>>"Even if there were reason to believe some of the material in the 
>>Gospels to express eye witness accounts of Jesus' life, the accretion 
of legend, the description of miracles performed by Jesus, which 
exist in these writings make it difficult, if not impossible, to 
extract from them any reliable historical testimony about the events 
described." [attributed to Dr. Avrum Stroll, U. of British Columbia]. 
Here Dr. Stroll says that regardless of the question of eye witness 
testimony, he reject the authenticity of the Gospel accounts on the 
ground that they attribute miracles to Jesus.  But how does one know 
whether miracles occurred in connection with Jesus' life unless he 
>>investigates the primary documents?  Obviously Dr. Stroll is arguing 
>>in a circle. (History & Christianity, John Warwick Montgomery, 1965)

I cannot speak for Dr. Stroll, but I don't reject any stories in the  gospels 
without
first studying the primary documents. You may not be happy about my reasons
for dissmissing most of the miracle stories, but that still doesn't make my 
argument
circular.


>  >>As for your premise:
>
>>>a. John was not only Jesus' disciple, he was closer to Jesus that most.
>>>b. Mark was not an disciple, but he wrote under Petrine authority.
>>>c. Matthew was one of the original 12.
>>>d. Luke was not an eye-witness, but he was a gentile and an historian
>
>Those premises are not mine. I don't know where you got them from.


>>Did you not say "None of the authors of the gospels appear to have 
>>been a disciple of Jesus himself" ?

Yes, but you have put a lot more than that into the premises. How did you
conclude that I'm claiming that Mark wrote under Petrine authority?

>
>If you are talking about the idea about a crucified Messiah going against
>the standard Jewish messianic hopes of the day, then I agree with you.
>If you argue that Jesus himself preached that he was going to be the 
>crucified Messiah as witnessed about in the OT then I am not with 
>you.


>>I was referring to the essene "messiahs", but now you're saying 
something that I did not anticipate.  You must think that Jesus did 
not anticipate his death any more than his disciples did, thereby 
requiring a paranoid and sputtering church to invent the words that 
are posed as direct quotations of Jesus wherein he proceeds in almost 
morbid anticipation of the end of his ministry?  I find it surprising 
that you can find no instances of Jesus foretelling his crucifiction 
>>and resurrection.

Exactly, I am quite sure that passages like Mark 8:31-33 are inventions
by the early Church. The threesome prediction of his resurrection and death
is a litterary device and it smells of it a long way. Maybe you and me don't
smell things the same way.

>According to my reading of the gospel evidence the idea about a 
>suffering Son of Man was the creation of the early Church. To make 
>sense of Jesus unexpected death his disciples searched the 
>scriptures for verses in the OT that could explain things (see Luke 
>24:25-27). They  found them in Isaiah and Daniel among other places. 
>Obviously the reinterpretation of these passages in the OT must have 
>caught on among certain Jews - if not we wouldn't have the Church.


>>Exactly, you are saying that whatever is inexplicable (AND BECAUSE IT 
IS INEXPLICABLE), derives from the OT and/or from common myth, and 
then cunning storytellers invented the dialog and circumstances that 

would accommodate the myth.  I hope you would agree that this 
hypothesis requires a certain leap of faith, but more importantly, I 
>>hope you would recognize its circular logic.

You are reading things into my statement again that are not there. I don't
find it the least inexplicable that the followers of Jesus searched through
the scriptures to understand why their master could be the Messiah despite
him dying a very unmessianic death. Specially since Luke tells us himself
in a metaphorical way how they did it. But maybe all boils down to the
fact that after studying all kinds of past and recent religious movements for
years nothing surprises me any more. If a movement like Mormons can be
born after some witnesses testifying to having seen some nonexistent 
goldplates
it is not a hard leap of the imagination to believe that the early Christians 
searched
through the scriptures like some folks today search through the prophecies of
Nostradamus to find a meaning in their lifes.
And stop this nonsense about circular logic.


Best wishes

Antonio Jerez
Göteborg, Sweden