Did Any of the Authors of the Gospels Know Jesus?

[RabbiO]

Now bare with me please....

If you don't mind I will keep my clothes on.

 

[Lyndale]

Destiny awaits

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So it was Jewish Romans that wrote the New Testament.

I would not be so quick to acquire my history from an outhouse. So, for example:

Was Mark a Jew by birth? In favor of this view would be the correct use of numerous Aramaic (or Hebrew) words in the Gospel. On the other hand, Mark's moth tongue seems to be Greek, for the characteristics of the Markan language do not point to Semitic influence, but correspond to the style of Hellenistic folk literature and literary Koine. Since Mark demonstrably writes for a Gentile church (cf. 3.4.4), he can be described as a Greek-speaking Gentile Christian who also has a command of Aramaic, probably a native of Syria who grew to adult there. [Schnelle; pg. 200]

Now bare with me please, but that sounds counter-intuitive. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so why would they create a religion that promotes Jesus in that light?

At the same time, I would be careful about claims concerning what 'Jews' did and did not believe. It is unlikely that Jews were ever monolithic and this was certainly true in the closing days of the 2nd Temple Period. See, for example, David Flusser's two volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period.

 

[oldbadger]

Well, not all can see it. It doesn't look like an agenda-filled bias to me but rather the most reasonable explanation of the evidence. The writer of Mark seems to have created at least parts of the Jesus story from material found in the old Jewish scriptures.

I don't think an eyewitness would do that.

Look...... Ambitious ... D) ...... if we believe then we no longer see objectively, but equally, if we disbelieve we no longer see clearly, either. So a more balanced and detached viewpoint might help us all.....?

You mention that the writer of Mark created 'at least parts' from old scriptures. He might have, or these same creations might have been inserts or edits, or embellishments to the oral traditions carried forward over the years. Great..... you are in immediate danger of being in accord with me. So take them out! And now you will be left with a massive book, the Gospel of Mark, and all you have to do is deny all this report. Difficult.

 

[oldbadger]

… but not "Vermes, Sanders, Crosson and Grant"?

You know, you don't lose points by actually referencing the actual books and their actual authors. ​

Fair comment.
I actually have read:
The Historical Figure of Jesus E P Sanders
The changing faces of Jesus Geza Vermes
Jesus Michael Grant
The Historical Jesus J D Crosson

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You mention that the writer of Mark created 'at least parts' from old scriptures. He might have, or these same creations might have been inserts or edits, or embellishments to the oral traditions carried forward over the years.

It's hard for me to believe that oral traditions would grow up about a man who lived only 40 years earlier and seemed to have made no real mark on the world.

But who knows.

 

[Lyndale]

"...real mark..."?

I find that wrong.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I would not be so quick to acquire my history from an outhouse. So, for example:

​

At the same time, I would be careful about claims concerning what 'Jews' did and did not believe. It is unlikely that Jews were ever monolithic and this was certainly true in the closing days of the 2nd Temple Period. See, for example, David Flusser's two volume Judaism of the Second Temple Period.

Thanks for the info and will check-out David's book.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

If you don't mind I will keep my clothes on.

LOL! and thank you.

 

[oldbadger]

...............................
But it's easy to believe that the writer of Mark stole stuff from the Jewish scriptures with which to build his Christ.

And since he apparently did so, it's easier to believe that he wasn't an eyewitness to Jesus (and didn't know Jesus) and was more probably instead a story constructor... which some of us call a fiction writer.

Now....... why would a story writer, building a myth about Jesus the Son of God insert such surprises as Jesus's weaknesses, failings, death on a cross, etc etc? Pretty weak for lies, don't you think?

You and me, Ambitious, could have done better..................:
The trial with a massively confident defendant.
The interview with Pilate, and Jesus saying, 'Look matey, bring it on..... What've you got?'
The Romans nailing Jesus to the cross, and Jesus telling the Decurian (whoever) 'You need more nails, mate. More Nails!' and the crowd taking up this shout which would become a Christian cry for thousands of years...... 'More Nails!'.
And the cry to Eli, summoning a great fiery chariot which swooped down from the clouds taking Jesus up beside Elijah and leaving a burning cross upon the hill.
The Decuriam looking up at the departing pair and saying 'Blimey, that's the pucka fella there mate' (He was Australian, OK?

See? Now that's the way to tell a fib. Mark? A fibber? You're losing your touch.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See? Now that's the way to tell a fib. Mark? A fibber? You're losing your touch.

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.

 

[oldbadger]

It's hard for me to believe that oral traditions would grow up about a man who lived only 40 years earlier and seemed to have made no real mark on the world.

But who knows.

Well.... you should know better............. :-

That there was a growth of legend around Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend around pagan figures like Alfred the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious. To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.
Michael Grant.
Jesus. Page 200

 

[outhouse]

So it was Jewish Romans that wrote the New Testament. Now bare with me please, but that sounds counter-intuitive. Jews don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so why would they create a religion that promotes Jesus in that light?

Proseytes following Judaism does not equal a Jew.


They liked one god and Judaism, but did not like all the laws and wanted to seperate themselves far from Judaism.

 

[outhouse]

I would not be so quick to acquire my history from an outhouse. .

Nor would I put up with anyone promoting their bias

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Now....... why would a story writer, building a myth about Jesus the Son of God insert such surprises as Jesus's weaknesses, failings, death on a cross, etc etc? Pretty weak for lies, don't you think?

Try writing some fiction. It's a fundamental bit of craft to give your protagonist all sorts of weaknesses. And the death on the cross, of course, is central to the whole sacrifice thing. It was the point of the story.

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

If you could, more power to you. I'm pretty sure that I could very much improve the Jesus story contained in gMark. But I couldn't muck with the central elements too much or it wouldn't be the Jesus story.

The interview with Pilate, and Jesus saying, 'Look matey, bring it on..... What've you got?'
The Romans nailing Jesus to the cross, and Jesus telling the Decurian (whoever) 'You need more nails, mate. More Nails!' and the crowd taking up this shout which would become a Christian cry for thousands of years...... 'More Nails!'.

It's not supposed to be comedy, oldbadger.

And the cry to Eli, summoning a great fiery chariot which swooped down from the clouds taking Jesus up beside Elijah and leaving a burning cross upon the hill.

That's a superhero comic book... which the Jesus story already uncomfortably resembles. You'd push it completely over the line, I think.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That there was a growth of legend around Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly.

I don't think so. I'm thinking Mark didn't write for about 100-140 years after the legends began to be told.

Anyway, this is turning into another HJ v MJ thread, and Sunstone specifically asked for that not to happen.

So meet me around the corner if you want to continue. Post an OP.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fair comment.
I actually have read:
The Historical Figure of Jesus E P Sanders
The changing faces of Jesus Geza Vermes
Jesus Michael Grant
The Historical Jesus J D Crosson

Well done. Seriously.

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

 

[Desert Snake]

Well done. Seriously.

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

But you don't have a sound, complete, opinion on the matter?

 

[Desert Snake]

Now....... why would a story writer, building a myth about Jesus the Son of God insert such surprises as Jesus's weaknesses, failings, death on a cross, etc etc? Pretty weak for lies, don't you think?

You and me, Ambitious, could have done better..................:
The trial with a massively confident defendant.
The interview with Pilate, and Jesus saying, 'Look matey, bring it on..... What've you got?'
The Romans nailing Jesus to the cross, and Jesus telling the Decurian (whoever) 'You need more nails, mate. More Nails!' and the crowd taking up this shout which would become a Christian cry for thousands of years...... 'More Nails!'.
And the cry to Eli, summoning a great fiery chariot which swooped down from the clouds taking Jesus up beside Elijah and leaving a burning cross upon the hill.
The Decuriam looking up at the departing pair and saying 'Blimey, that's the pucka fella there mate' (He was Australian, OK?

See? Now that's the way to tell a fib. Mark? A fibber? You're losing your touch.

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.

 

[steeltoes]

See? Now that's the way to tell a fib. Mark? A fibber? You're losing your touch.

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