Why can't Christians Verify Exactly Where Jesus Was Buried?

[Firefighter01]

You do understand that the structure is based on the understanding of the Septuagint? Also how do you think that a discourse of that length and complexity could possibly recorded within a crowd of multitudes?

[Aractus]

It's not at all based on the structure of the Septuagint. The LXX does not appear anywhere in history as a structured, organised, complete collection of the Hebrew scriptures until the 3rd century AD (as the fifth column of the Hexapla). You aren't entitled to make stuff up - all that we know for sure existed when Jesus was alive was some earlier version of the Pentateuch that later became the LXX (and possibly, if not probably, Isaiah and the Psalms as well). Like I keep saying, some proto-lxx that we don't know much about, other than the fact that it contained the Pentateuch. What you call the LXX is a collection of translations done at separate times by separate people and collected as a single library (and then later bound as a codex).

And again, the Greek vocabulary does not mean anything. Some gospel writers did use a proto-lxx, but not all did. There are several instances where the text exactly matches the Hebrew against the LXX. Luke for examples quotes from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and not the LXX Pentateuch. At other times he quotes from some proto-lxx version of Isaiah and Psalms. Matthew on the other hand, does appear to make use of some proto-lxx Pentateuch. So when Matthew quotes Jesus quoting the Pentateuch it's from the LXX, and when Luke does it it's from the Hebrew. Conclusion: the gospel writers have redacted the citations.

Anyway, the Sermon on the Mount is not too long or convoluted for a preacher in ancient times to remember. It may not be a single sermon, and it may be made up of two or more separate sermons that Jesus gave - that hardly worries me as an atheist. Like I said before, Jesus probably peached the Sermon or Sermons several times to several different audiences, and for those who repeatedly attended (like the disciples) remembering it wouldn't have been too difficult. After all they are meant to be taught by these Sermons.

[rexbeccarox]

It's not at all based on the structure of the Septuagint. The LXX does not appear anywhere in history as a structured, organised, complete collection of the Hebrew scriptures until the 3rd century AD (as the fifth column of the Hexapla). You aren't entitled to make stuff up - all that we know for sure existed when Jesus was alive was some earlier version of the Pentateuch that later became the LXX (and possibly, if not probably, Isaiah and the Psalms as well). Like I keep saying, some proto-lxx that we don't know much about, other than the fact that it contained the Pentateuch. What you call the LXX is a collection of translations done at separate times by separate people and collected as a single library (and then later bound as a codex).

And again, the Greek vocabulary does not mean anything. Some gospel writers did use a proto-lxx, but not all did. There are several instances where the text exactly matches the Hebrew against the LXX. Luke for examples quotes from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and not the LXX Pentateuch. At other times he quotes from some proto-lxx version of Isaiah and Psalms. Matthew on the other hand, does appear to make use of some proto-lxx Pentateuch. So when Matthew quotes Jesus quoting the Pentateuch it's from the LXX, and when Luke does it it's from the Hebrew. Conclusion: the gospel writers have redacted the citations.

Anyway, the Sermon on the Mount is not too long or convoluted for a preacher in ancient times to remember. It may not be a single sermon, and it may be made up of two or more separate sermons that Jesus gave - that hardly worries me as an atheist. Like I said before, Jesus probably peached the Sermon or Sermons several times to several different audiences, and for those who repeatedly attended (like the disciples) remembering it wouldn't have been too difficult. After all they are meant to be taught by these Sermons.

The things I bolded don't follow the statement, "You aren't entitled to make stuff up".

[Aractus]

Right, I'm highlighting that we do not know what was available at that time. Calling what was available in the first century "the LXX" is as invalid as calling the first-century temple scrolls "the MT". The Sermon on the Mount may or may not be a single sermon - that comes from scholarship, not from opinion or anything I "made up".

[The Grand Nudger]

This is silly.  The sermon on the mount is not seen by critical scholarship as a transcript of any sermon on any mount, Aractus, or even many sermons on many mounts.  It is seen, as the entire book is seen, as a summary arranged by the author drawing heavily from mark, the hypothetical q, and the equally hypothetical m. I'd call that fan fic, you can call it whatever you like.

It is a collection of sayings attributed to jesus and compiled into literary form, based..ostensibly.. upon documents that no one has ever seen. All attributions to jesus are moot point, ofc, unless there actually was some historical jesus in the first place, and the attribution of sayings compiled into literary narratives doesn;t depend on the historicity of the characters the narrative clothes itself with. For all you know (and all the author knew), some or all of the sermon on the mount are the collected sayings of guys named bob, bill, and herbert...even if there -was- some historical jesus. It's good to at least discuss whatever it is you're considering for what it is, rather than what you believe it to be based upon the assumption of a historical jesus. The stories are what they are regardless of the truth of that. If someone wrote a speech in my name, and I was a historical person, that won't make that speech my speech...and the sermon on the mount was no speech of any jesus-the-man.

It was a speech written for the character of jesus, by the author of matthew, that tied nicely with OT themes (such as coming down from the fucking mountain to dispense the law.....). Even if we -were- to assume a historical jesus, it could raise itself no higher than pious historical fiction. Imagining what jesus would have said, if he said it all at once, in a dramatic and meaningful setting. "We" ofc, -don't- assume a historical jesus, but even you aren't satisfied with the narrative as it is, for what it is. You feel compelled to make shit up. Personally, I think that "matthew" felt the same way, as he surveyed whatever the hell he is supposed to have had at his disposal.

[Aractus]

Right, um, no. The Sermon on the Mount contains nothing found in Mark.

[rexbeccarox]

The "whoosh" is louder than the tropical storm winds we're experiencing in my area right now.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL< It wasn't a woosh.  Aractus isn't an idiot, even if he just spent considerable time spinning idiotic fantasies about the sermon on the mount and what scholarship has to say about it....he just doesn't feel like engaging. It's not like I left him any room to bullshit himself, or us, further, anyway.

[Aractus]

Sorry I was pressed for time last night. I'm sticking by what I said earlier which is that Jesus delivered the teachings found in the Sermon on the Mount on several occasions, which is why some of the teachings appear elsewhere in Luke and Matthew. Excluding those extraneouses, nothing that isn't duplicated somewhere else in Matthew and Luke is found in Mark.

The thing is that we don't need to know it was a complete single sermon or an amalgamation of two or more sermons, that was never my point. My point is that James has foreknowledge of the content of Matthew's Sermon on the Mount before it is published. He doesn't use the Lukan Sermon on the Plain, and he displays no knowledge whatsoever of the content of Mark's Gospel. The important thing is that however James came to know about what Jesus said, he appears to have remained ignorant about the content that appears in the other gospels, which means he had limited knowledge. This is tremendously important, because James is believed to have written his epistle around the same time that Paul was writing, or maybe up to 10 years later. This provides indirect evidence that Paul may also have lacked "complete" knowledge about the teachings of Jesus as found within the Synoptic gospels - he may not have known for example that Jesus said clearly that he came only for the lost sheep of Israel.

[Silver]

Jesus who? Is there any actual evidence for him having existed that we are having this discussion. Or this an intellectual masturbatory arena now?