Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?

[steeltoes]

Mark was fashioning legitimacy by painting the death as the culmination of prophecy and pointing to the psalm as a proof text. It was not a particularly uncommon narrative technique.

Whenever Mark rewrote a story from the OT, changing a name here and there, that's proof of what?

I ask because:

"This [narrative technique] was, says Spong, "a Jewish way of suggesting that the holy God encountered in Jesus went even beyond the God presence that had been met in Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha. That is the way the midrashic principle worked. Stories about heroes of the Jewish past were heightened and retold again and again about heroes of the present moment, not because those same events actually occurred, but because the reality of God revealed in those moments was like the reality of God known in the past." Other more obvious examples (among the hundreds we encounter in this book) would be Herod's attempt to kill the Christ child through his "slaughter of the innocents", a retelling of Pharaoh's attempt to kill the promised deliverer Moses by slaying the Hebrew first-born in Egypt; or the entry of Jesus, riding a donkey, into Jerusalem on "Palm Sunday", a rendering of the prophet's visionary scene of the Day of the Lord in Zechariah 9:9-11: "Rejoice, daughter of Zion . . . for see, your king is coming to you . . . humble and mounted on an *** . . ." Neither event does Spong believe actually happened in the life of Jesus." http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/spongrev.htm

 

[steeltoes]

Did any of the authors of the Gospels know Jesus in life? My impression is that none of them did. But I'm wondering if that impression is wrong.

Please stick to topic and refrain from debating the question of whether or not Jesus existed. If you want to debate that, start your own thread please.

I think that the gospels are fiction, so for example, if a Jesus was behind the Q sayings and teachings we can't know anything about him. Q was inserted into gMark by later gospel writers making it difficult to know what their purpose was.

 

[outhouse]

You and me, Ambitious, could have done better..................:

I agree.


You still have made no credible case for any author being around any part of the orignal movement.

 

[oldbadger]

Well done. Seriously.

I have not read Grant but I have read Sanders and Vermes and like both - although I somewhat prefer Meier.

Meier was recommended to me a year ago. The book cost about £30+, so, being a skinflint I purchased Sanders at £1.79 with free delivery.

 

[Desert Snake]

Meier was recommended to me a year ago. The book cost about £30+, so, being a skinflint I purchased Sanders at £1.79 with free delivery.

O.k.... So, do you believe in embellished narrative? later in the nt like I've suggested as a possibility?

 

[oldbadger]

No, I disagree. In fact, out of anything in the nt, the crucifixion/resurrection narrative rings the most fictional to me.
Likely, Jesus survived the cross one way or another, and the writers may have embellished the story.
You're incorrect about 'why' it would be embellished in such a manner, there are obvious reasons why.

..... could you explain why it would have been embellished, and show some typical embellishments?

 

[Desert Snake]

..... could you explain why it would have been embellished, and show some typical embellishments?

It is mostly about how the narrative doesn't match other information from say Josephus...who doesn't mention an actual crucifixion at all, merely says the Jesus was condemned to the cross.. but his early followers remained faithful...this sounds to me as if Jesus either was taken down by his followers (from the cross perhaps), or some other scenario, if one can' t believe in the resurrection.
The narrative 'evidence' points to Jesus surviving the cross as well, though in the nt we have a "resurrection",(islam claims no resurrection, claims Jesus wasn't crucified.), anyways, there is no narrative or evidence, of Jesus simply perishing on the cross. In fact, this scene is very specific (imo), to other cultures outside of the Essenic and Israelites...it 'makes sense' only to certain foreign elements, really. There were Christians immediately after jesus time in Israel, many of the first converts were Essenes, there wasn't any time to 'create' a mythic 'ressurection' idea.
I find the assumption of a crucified Jewish rebel against Rome who perishes on the cross, turned into mythic resurrection pure speculation, you have to keep in mind, the earliest Christians were very austere, mysticism and overly symbolic metaphor were most likeky not part of their beliefs. Anyways, just my .02$

 

[oldbadger]

Do you consider Arthur Conan Doyle a fibber or a writer of fiction?

Arthur Conan Doyle was a historian. One of the most amazing books he wrote was titled 'The White Company'. His description of the killing efficiency of Spanish 'slingers' is brilliantly clear. You should read it if you have not done so already.

But Conan Doyle chose to write both faction and fiction...... why you would try to entangle his work with that of 20th and 21st century HJ historians is obvious. As a denialist (Igtheist?) you need to duck and dive every-which-way to keep your argument alive.

Like yourself, many quality HJ historians are atheists, but you seem to be so vexed by christianity that you need to stamp out every trace of it's birth....... that of a real healer who lived and worked around the shores of the Lake in Galilee..... that's where the other atheist historians leave your side...... no?

 

[oldbadger]

It is mostly about how the narrative doesn't match other information from say Josephus...who doesn't mention an actual crucifixion at all, merely says the Jesus was condemned to the cross.. but his early followers remained faithful...this sounds to me as if Jesus either was taken down by his followers (from the cross perhaps), or some other scenario, if one can' t believe in the resurrection.

1. OK..... although my hobby (HJ) is not wholly centered around anything that Josephus wrote, I have no problems with your suggestions (as above).
His followers may have appealed for his release, which is where the factional story ends....... with Jesus BarAbba(s).
2. Pilate could have intended to save him after a display and had him taken down early (he did kill the bandits by breaking their legs on the cross, but the spear-in-side of Jesus may have been illusory, for any remaining sightseers.
3. Joseph of A might have bribed Pilate, or done some kind of deal, and had him taken down, nursed for a day in a cave and gotten him away (to Gaul?.... Kashmir?.... Conwall?)
4. Jesus might have died on the cross, been taken down, and taken away for burial where his followers could not make a shrine.
........ the possibilities are many....

The narrative 'evidence' points to Jesus surviving the cross as well, though in the nt we have a "resurrection",(islam claims no resurrection), anyways, there is no narrative or evidence, of Jesus simply perishing on the cross. In fact, this scene is very specific (imo), to other cultures outside of the Essenic and Israelites...it 'makes sense' only to certain foreign elements, really. There were Christians immediately after jesus time in Israel, many of the first converts were Essenes, there wasn't any time to 'create' a mythic 'ressurection' idea.
I find the assumption of a crucified Jewish rebel against Rome turned into mythic resurrection pure speculation, you have to keep in mind, the earliest Christians were very austere, mysticism and overly symbolic metaphor were most likeky not part of their beliefs. Anyways, just my .02$

I don't focus upon the resurrection, but don't attack it because I enjoy discussing J's life with Christians as well. If you feel the need to stamp all over Christianity, that's your 'need', but don't bother chucking it at me because I'm not a Christian. You should have woken up to that much sooner than now.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't focus upon the resurrection, but don't attack it because I enjoy discussing J's life with Christians as well. If you feel the need to stamp all over Christianity, that's your 'need', but don't bother chucking it at me because I'm not a Christian. You should have woken up to that much sooner than now.

This is nonsense.:yes:

 

[oldbadger]

This is nonsense.:yes:

OK...... let's start at the beginning.

Do you accept that the Galilean healer who was later called Jesus was real?

if you have difficulty with that, try:-

Do you accept that Jesus of Nazareth did exist?

 

[Desert Snake]

OK...... let's start at the beginning.

Do you accept that the Galilean healer who was later called Jesus was real?

if you have difficulty with that, try:-

Do you accept that Jesus of Nazareth did exist?

What the heck is that?
And, what's your point?
Btw, take a wild guess since my username is 'disciple'.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Meier was recommended to me a year ago. The book cost about £30+, so, being a skinflint I purchased Sanders at £1.79 with free delivery.

I know nothing about libraries in GB but would expect them to be exceptional.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you accept that Jesus of Nazareth did exist?

Presumably. After all, he claims that some of the Gospel authors were family - a rather novel claim which bespeaks a rather laughable ignorance.

(It might be fun to find out just which author was mishpachah and just how they were related.)​

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

But Conan Doyle chose to write both faction and fiction...... why you would try to entangle his work with that of 20th and 21st century HJ historians is obvious. As a denialist (Igtheist?) you need to duck and dive every-which-way to keep your argument alive.

Like yourself, many quality HJ historians are atheists, but you seem to be so vexed by christianity that you need to stamp out every trace of it's birth....... that of a real healer who lived and worked around the shores of the Lake in Galilee..... that's where the other atheist historians leave your side...... no?

I swear if I ever meet an HJ who can keep such raw ad hominem out of his Jesus debates, I believe I'll marry him.

Why not just stick with the issue itself?

 

[Desert Snake]

Presumably. After all, he claims that some of the Gospel authors were family - a rather novel claim which bespeaks a rather laughable ignorance.

(It might be fun to find out just which author was mishpachah and just how they were related.)
​

And you're claiming that none of the gospel writers knew Jesus? What about translations? Seems like it could all be fictional according to your theory.

Correct me if i'm wrong................

 

[Desert Snake]

Why not just stick with the issue itself?

I don't know, I was surprised at that as well, when it happened with my comments..

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't know, I was surprised at that as well, when it happened with my comments..

Some people, driven by egotism, have no use for civility.

 

[steeltoes]

Arthur Conan Doyle was a historian. One of the most amazing books he wrote was titled 'The White Company'. His description of the killing efficiency of Spanish 'slingers' is brilliantly clear. You should read it if you have not done so already.

But Conan Doyle chose to write both faction and fiction...... why you would try to entangle his work with that of 20th and 21st century HJ historians is obvious. As a denialist (Igtheist?) you need to duck and dive every-which-way to keep your argument alive.

Like yourself, many quality HJ historians are atheists, but you seem to be so vexed by christianity that you need to stamp out every trace of it's birth....... that of a real healer who lived and worked around the shores of the Lake in Galilee..... that's where the other atheist historians leave your side...... no?

Rubbish

 

[oldbadger]

What the heck is that?
And, what's your point?
Btw, take a wild guess since my username is 'disciple'.

I was right......
You can't answer a simple question, straight.

I thought so....
All I wanted to do, was start at the beginning, to see if we could agree on anything. What is the point of sharing posts with you if you can't do that?

Would you like to try again? (I didn't think so).