Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[fredd bear]

The q hypothesis states that there was a -greek-..not jewish, source.  I suppose I can understand why people get this mixed up in the context of "jewish christians" in a heavily hellenized part of the world.

-and it remains the case that you are basing your "no doubts" on a hypothetical document that no one has, no one mentioned, and no one decided to keep.  The foundation of which is based upon attempting to construct a non christian non jewish jesus, who was a wandering cynic offering smart sentences to anyone who struck up a conversation or offered a meal.

Does that sound like the guy you're convinced of?

Many Jews spoke Greek; the author of the Gospel of Matthew was a Jew.

 Another recovering catholic here

"Many Jews spoke Greek; the author of the Gospel of Matthew was a Jew."

 I didn't know that. I was taught no one knows who the authors of the Gospels were. That the names were ascribed arbitrarily and that the Gospels were written in Greek.

Although the historicity of Jesus has not been established ,most historians agree Jesus probably existed.  That is also my position.

I find your hypothesis about Jesus interesting. Be most interested in your source. 

My position is that the New Testament is mostly myth, especially the epistles; several are already seen as forgeries, and the rest as suspect.

Imo Jesus was  a pretty ordinary wondering Rabbi, of which there were many at that time in Judaea. He upset the wrong people and got himself crucified. There is a lot of doubt about what he actually taught and what claims he made. The new testament is not a reliable source 

What is known is that Jesus founded a small Jewish sect. IE Initially one HAD TO BE a practicing Jew. That meant observing the mizvot of the Law of Moses, AND the mitzvah of the bris .(circumcision) Gentiles were NOT admitted.

Then along comes Saul. It's he who founds the religion later known as Christianity. He does that by first eliminating all of the commandments  dealing with ritual, especially the bris  and dietary laws. He  then admits gentiles.

A minor point: worth checking actual Jewish tradition about prophecy of the Messiah. The Christian claims are a travesty.

Eg 'Mashiach (Messiah) does NOT mean saviour . It means 'anointed'   IE King. The messiah is to be a warrior king in the tradition of David. He is most certainly NOT divine, and will not die young.

To claim that Jesus is the son of God AND to worship him is/was a monumental heresy to the jews.An offence for which Jesus could have been stoned. Jesus would have been acutely aware of this. I think it's unlikely he would have had made such a claim. Just about everything written in the gospels is suspect as history

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Below a bit of what I've managed to find  about the authorship of Mark after a very quick search. Admittedly, it's only Wikipedia. I'd be grateful if you could point out any factual errors (and cite your sources)

Authorship and genre

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[8] It was probably written c. AD 66–70, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[4] The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1–3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1–35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[9] It was written in Greek for a gentile audience, and Rome, Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternative places of composition.[10] Early Christian tradition attributes it to John Mark mentioned in Acts, but scholars generally reject this as an attempt to link the gospel to an authoritative figure[5]


The Gospels represent a form of Greco-Roman biography.[11] Interpreters differ when it comes to understanding what purpose Mark had for writing the Gospel. Among some of the proposals include that Mark strictly had a theological agenda,[12] that Mark was written in order to distance Christianity from political connotations in light of the Roman-Jewish War,[13] or that Mark was responding to imperial Flavian propaganda.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

[The Grand Nudger]

The historical jesus, if there were one, didn't have to be a practicing jew any more than he had to be a carpenters son or a lunatic. There's no indication that any historical jesus formed any sect of any kind, for that matter.

The story as we have it now has held such a privileged place for so long that we impose the contents of it's propagandist and fictitious elements on history.

[fredd bear]

The historical jesus, if there were one, didn't have to be a practicing jew any more than he had to be a carpenters son or a lunatic.  There's no indication that any historical jesus formed any sect of any kind, for that matter.

The story as we have it now has held such a privileged place for so long that we impose the contents of it's propagandist and fictitious elements on history.

 You may be right.

My understanding is the sect Jesus founded was that Jesus was indeed  and that one needed to be a practising Jew to belong to the small sect he founded.. BUT , this is an educated guess at best, based on what I understand of available evidence ,all of which is well after the fact. 

However, considering the current choices, I will continue to hold the view I have until some one comes up with a convincing alternative

[Fake Messiah]

My understanding is the sect Jesus founded was that Jesus was indeed  and that one needed to be a practising Jew to belong to the small sect he founded.. BUT , this is an educated guess at best, based on what I understand of available evidence ,all of which is well after the fact. 

However, considering the current choices, I will continue to hold the view I have until some one comes up with a convincing alternative

Well, then, what do you say I dissuade you from historical Jesus? From what I see in the posts in this topic is that even proponents of the existence of Q think that it didn't have any Jesus' biographical notes, but that it was rather a collection of sayings. Because Jesus' biographical notes don't just seem made up but taken from the Old Testament characters, but then again so do so called Jesus' sayings, like like love your neighbor; last words on the cross; golden rule...

Or even more, like
-when in Matthew 12 Jesus is charged with expelling demons by gaining magical control over their diabolical chief, Jesus says "But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you." is like when after sorcerer-priests who reproduced most of Moses' miracles finally had to give up in defeat said "And the magicians said to Pharaoh, `This is the finger of God." in Exodus 8:18-19 Jesus' accusers correspond to Pharaoh, while their "sons" who repeat Jesus' own miracles must correspond to the Egyptian magicians.
- in Matthew 11:5 John the Baptist's emissaries are to report what they see and hear of his miracles and Jesus just happens to quote Isaac 35:5-6 and Isaac 61:1
- or even heavenly voice at Jesus' baptism Mark 1:11 "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." has been cobbled together from three OT passages like Psalm 2:7 where Yahve announces to the newly crowned king of Judah, "You are my son; today I have begotten you." which already was a coronation anthem repeated as part of the enthronement liturgy every time a new king took the throne.
- Jesus' denunciation of towns in Matthew 11:21 unresponsive to gospel preaching is combination of Ezekiel 28 (against Tyre) and Isaac 14 (against Babylon), especially likening Capernaum to Babylon
- when satan tells Jesus "If you are the Son of God, prove it!" Jesus rebuts the proposition by quoting part of Deuteronomy 8:3; or when satan tells him to jump off Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16, "You shall not put Yahve your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah."; or when satan offers Jesus the world Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:13-14 "You shall fear Yahve your God..."

So even if Q was real it seems to have been collection of ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic philosophies with some doomsday prophesies over and above the peaceful antecedents from which they borrowed, perhaps, for dramatic effect.
And perhaps that's why it's missing--because Christians destroyed it because it didn't seem to fit into what ever they wanted Jesus to be, like they did with many other scriptures like Gospel of Thomas, Infancy gospels, Gospel of Marcion etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

The hypothetical q doesn't have anything to do with doomsday.  Those would be the "embellishments". The reason that q doesn;t exist anymore, if it ever did, is because there's nothing "christian" about it whatsoever.

Whether that's some fact of the hypothetical document or a fact of the people constructing the hypothetical document is an amusing question. We know it's the latter even if it were the former as well.

[fredd bear]

@ Fake Messiah

"Well, then, what do you say I dissuade you from historical Jesus?"


Why do you want to change my mind? That comes across as rather arrogant thing to say. I'm unable to change my position simply on the basis of some claims by some guy some internet forum.. Especially when the claim is rejected by scholars generally.

"Even if Q was real it seems to have been collection of ancient Egyptian and Hellenistic philosophies with some doomsday prophesies over and above the peaceful antecedents from which they borrowed, perhaps, for dramatic effect.
And perhaps that's why it's missing--because Christians destroyed it because it didn't seem to fit into what ever they wanted Jesus to be, like they did with many other scriptures like Gospel of Thomas, Infancy gospels, Gospel of Marcion etc.""

Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.

The historicity of Jesus not in contention by mainstream historians..This also my position. It also accepts that he was Jewish, again not in scholarly contention. Also my position.

As an atheist, I have an academic interest in Christianity. I see the historicity of Jesus as irrelevant. Imo the religion invented in his name has very little ,if anything to do with the person or teachings of a man probably called something like Yeshua bar Yusuf. He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.

My position was reinforced a few years ago, when I read a book by A N Wilson, one of my favourite historians. The book is "Paul The Mind Of The Disciple" However, I'm not intransigent. I simply have high standards of scholarship.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

"The historicity of Jesus is the question if Jesus of Nazareth can be regarded as a historical figure. Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical-critical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain,[1][2] although they differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels.[3][4][5][note 1]

The question of the historicity of Jesus is part of the study of the historical Jesus as undertaken in the quest for the historical Jesus and the scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts and applying the standard criteria of critical-historical investigation,[6][7][8] and methodologies for analyzing the reliability of primary sources and other historical evidence.[9]

While scholars have criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness,[note 2] with very few exceptions such critics generally do support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[11][12][13][14][note 3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[Fake Messiah]

Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.

I did give you some examples that Jesus' saying weren't actually Jesus' sayings. Unless, one wishes to imagine historical Jesus (and in some cases even God) sitting with his Hebrew Psalter, Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic Targum open in front of him, deciding what to crib. Only then does it come to seem ridiculous.

He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.

Oh, let me use your own words "Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts." You tend to see Jesus as a Rabii, but why? Some other people see that historical Jesus was a Cynic philosopher because he borrowed from Greek philosophy so he had to had actually been a wandering Cynic or a Stoic sage, or the Galilean equivalent.

And there is also completely different view by Dead Sea Scroll authority Geza Vermes who sees Jesus as a charismatic Hasid. Who was very much like one of the popular freewheeling Galilean holy men, unorthodox figures like Hanina Ben-Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer.

Then there is J.M. Allegro who thinks that Jesus was more like John the Baptist’s sect and the Therapeutae/Essenes of Qumran who gave us the Dead Sea scrolls, wondering if Jesus and John the Baptist were members of that radical community.

I mean you see him as a Rabbi and some see him as an opposite to that, like an iconoclast because he point-by-point, dismantles the Torah in verses like Mark 7:15-20

Then don't forget Reza Aslan who claims Jesus was a violent Zealot revolutionary inciting a revolt against the Romans, like Theudas or "the Egyptian," the unnamed Messianic figure Josephus describes, or the two "robbers" crucified with Jesus (since rebel bandits were commonly referred to as robbers). Why else would it be the Romans crucifying him, rather than the Jewish Sanhedrin just stoning him to death for blasphemy, as the law demanded? There is "evidence" one can point to: Luke’s Gospel lists a disciple called Simon the Zealot.

Then there are other scholars like Bruce Malina who consider Jesus to be quite the opposite of a Zealot and that is a nonviolent pacifist resister.

Then there is a view that Jesus was a "crazy" Apocalyptic Prophet that Albert Schweitzer and many subsequent historians have thought was the real thing: A fearless, fiery Judgment Day preacher announcing that the end was nigh and the Kingdom of God was coming fast.

Then there were communists like Milan Machoveč who considers that Jesus was a First-Century Proto-Marxist and Communist because Jesus has nothing good to say about the capitalist pigs of his day, repeatedly preaching that they cannot serve both God and money AND SO ON....

[The Grand Nudger]

This diversity of opinion, itself, lends credibility to the christ myth..which is not there there was never a person or many people that the details of each of the individual jesi could have been cribbed from..but that the preexistent christ myth is the reason that anyone would have ever done that in the first place.

The notion is that they started with a story, and added human detail to make it compelling to their various audiences. Polemics and parables, not news reports. The mythmaking continues to this very day.

[fredd bear]

Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.

I did give you some examples that Jesus' saying weren't actually Jesus' sayings. Unless, one wishes to imagine historical Jesus (and in some cases even God) sitting with his Hebrew Psalter, Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic Targum open in front of him, deciding what to crib. Only then does it come to seem ridiculous.

He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.

Oh, let me use your own words "Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts." You tend to see Jesus as a Rabii, but why? Some other people see that historical Jesus was a Cynic philosopher because he borrowed from Greek philosophy so he had to had actually been a wandering Cynic or a Stoic sage, or the Galilean equivalent.

And there is also completely different view by Dead Sea Scroll authority Geza Vermes who sees Jesus as a charismatic Hasid. Who was very much like one of the popular freewheeling Galilean holy men, unorthodox figures like Hanina Ben-Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer.

Then there is J.M. Allegro who thinks that Jesus was more like John the Baptist’s sect and the Therapeutae/Essenes of Qumran who gave us the Dead Sea scrolls, wondering if Jesus and John the Baptist were members of that radical community.

I mean you see him as a Rabbi and some see him as an opposite to that, like an iconoclast because he point-by-point, dismantles the Torah in verses like Mark 7:15-20

Then don't forget Reza Aslan who claims Jesus was a violent Zealot revolutionary inciting a revolt against the Romans, like Theudas or "the Egyptian," the unnamed Messianic figure Josephus describes, or the two "robbers" crucified with Jesus (since rebel bandits were commonly referred to as robbers). Why else would it be the Romans crucifying him, rather than the Jewish Sanhedrin just stoning him to death for blasphemy, as the law demanded? There is "evidence" one can point to: Luke’s Gospel lists a disciple called Simon the Zealot.

Then there are other scholars like Bruce Malina who consider Jesus to be quite the opposite of a Zealot and that is a nonviolent pacifist resister.

Then there is a view that Jesus was a "crazy" Apocalyptic Prophet that Albert Schweitzer and many subsequent historians have thought was the real thing: A fearless, fiery Judgment Day preacher announcing that the end was nigh and the Kingdom of God was coming fast.

Then there were communists like Milan Machoveč who considers that Jesus was a First-Century Proto-Marxist and Communist because Jesus has nothing good to say about the capitalist pigs of his day, repeatedly preaching that they cannot serve both God and money AND SO ON....

The historicity of Jesus is accepted by historians generally, for the reasons I gave.  It is not under contention as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, as I've already said, why should I accept what some guy on some internet forum says ? IF I had the interest, I would first need to check your sources.

That you need to cite a communist era writer with a an almost certain ideological bias,  is not encouraging.

As I've also already said, this is topic of only peripheral interest to me, as I consider the historicity of Jesu irrelevant to  Christianity as it became.
.
I will agree to differ.

That is all I have to say to you on this topic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every historical jesus candidate is contested by advocates of some other historical jesus candidate, all of which are contested by both the q source and christ myth advocates. Why would a communist era writer with a certain bias trouble you anymore than the various era writers of the nt with their equally certain biases, or the liberal historical movement with it's own?

People see whatever they want in the character of christ and jesus, both are chimeric everymen and simultaneously famous nobodies. This has lead a particular camp of historical jesus enthusiasts to posit that while jesus may have been a real boy, there isn't anything that we can learn about that real boy from the sources we have.