I'm not a historian so I have to rely on those who have much more knowledge on Josephus than I have. And what I have read from some Jewish and Christian sources is that they do not think the massacre of the innocents was an actual event. Matter of fact, much in the infancy narratives are considered suspect if taken literally.

Needless to say, I really don't lose any sleep over it. What happened happened-- whatever that was. It's nice discussing such things, but we always have to remember that we have so little information that we can hang our hat on. And what I'm reflecting is a very Jewish response. When we see a story, such as what I brought up today while at a seminar on Esther, whether we view the story as an actual event or as a myth with morals is not so terribly important. The importance is why is this story being taught? What can we learn from it that might help us out today? IOW, we tend not to get hung up on whether the actual events occurred as written point by point.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

To me, it's not important. As I mentioned in my last post to Harvey, the scriptures contain myths* and they're put there for probably the main reason of explaining things in terms of God's involvement in the world and His wishes. So, from a Jewish perspective, we do not have to insist that the Sinai story, for example, is accurately depicted in Exodus, and there's some observant Jews that question whether there actually was a Sinai Experience. What did or didn't occur there doesn't change the teachings.



*I'm not using the word "myth" to mean falsehood here but am using it in the anthropological context as a story that is used as a teaching device regardless as to whether said event(s) historically took place.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I agree completely, speaking from the importance point. If these stories were used in that manner, I see absolutely no problem with them, in fact, I think most "secularists" would have no problem with them. But, as we all know, there is a very active and vocal part of religions that do insist on the historicity of it all, and it manifests itself from Fred Phelps and his sinister expressions of railings against homosexuals to radical expressions of Islam leading to suicide bombers. If all religions treasured and regarded their stories in the way you describe above, I wouldn't really care to investigate the "historicity" behind them.

-TC

Mark

Mark is the shortest of all the Gospels. Almost all of Mark can be found in Matthew. For this reason, many experts have concluded that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke copied from him.

Question:

If one subscribes to the above theory, why would an eyewitness copy from one who was not an eyewitness?

Some have theorized that because Mark contains some verses not found in the others, Mark must have used a document that the other two also shared, dubbed an “Ur-Markus”. Again, we must ask why an eyewitness (Matthew) needed an earlier account to form his “testimony”.

Mark does not include a nativity scene.

Question:

If Mark was first, meaning the author thought it could stand alone, why was this significant aspect of Jesus’ life omitted?

Mark states in (1:14), “Now after John was arrested…”, yet nowhere prior in Mark is John the Baptist’s arrest mentioned.

Question:

If Mark was the first Gospel written, how was the reader supposed to know what had befallen John and why?

It has also been suggested, that Matthew was actually the first Gospel written, and that Mark was written to respond to criticisms in Matthew. In addition to the above scenario which seems to presume the reader is already familiar with why John the Baptist was arrested, Mark also seems to smooth out another detail. In Matthew, Jesus calls James and John from their boat, abandoning their father. This may have struck some people as harsh with Jesus calling a father’s sons away and disobeying their father, a stonable offense. In Mark (1:20), the verse ends with “with hired servants”, thus not leaving dad all by himself.

Question:

Mark makes no mention of the “adoration” or of the confession of the disciples that Jesus was the Son of God. If Mark had Matthew before him, why would he omit these things?

Why does Mark place the parable of the “lamp under a bushel basket” in a different setting?

Why are there two demoniacs in Matthew and only one in Mark who are cast into the swine? Who should we trust, the eyewitness or the book many believe came first?

Is it significant that the Peter denies knowing Jesus three time in Matthew before the cock crows, while in Mark it only happens twice?

Is it significant that Matthew has Jesus do these things in this chronology:

1. Jesus climbs into a boat 2. Calms the storm 3. Heals the demoniacs 4. Returns to Galilee and heals the paralytic
In Mark he:

1. Jesus heals the paralytic 2. Gets into the boat 3. Calms the storm 4. Heals the demoniac

Is it significant that Mark (along with Luke) claim Jesus raised Jarius’ daughter after they got out of the boat and then the crowds rush them, whereas Matthew claims it occurred while with John the Baptist’s disciples as Matthew’s house?

Is it significant that Matthew has Christ enter Jerusalem, cleanse the Temple, spend the night in Bethany, and the next day curses the fig tree, which immediately withers, as opposed to Mark where Jesus enters Jerusalem, spends the night in Bethany, curses the fig tree, cleanses the Temple, and then the next day the disciples notice the fig tree is withered?

Is it significant that all three Synoptic versions place the Temple cleansing at the end of their stories while John places it at the beginning of the story?

Why do you think Matthew omits characteristics of Jesus that might seem unfavorable to a reader such as Mark noting them (3:5, 3:21, 6:52, 8:17-21, 9:32)?

Is it significant that the earliest versions of Mark do not include the post resurrection scenes(16:9-20)?

Of course, the question of the historicity of any of the biblical writings only came up as archeology and other studies indicated that there was no solid historical basis. Furthermore, the application of critical analysis to the texts ("higher criticism") and better understanding of ancient texts generally showed that there was little intention to record "history" in the sense we understand the term. Ancient historians, whether of Greek or Hebrew or other cultures recorded quite indiscriminately actual events, reported miracles and visions, fictions and traditions without making any distinction between them.

For the conservative "inerrantist" Christian, this was a huge problem, since they had internalized, as most of us have in the last few centuries, the dictum that truth is that which describes what actually happened.

If one accepts that dictum, then scripture can only be true if the events it describes are what actually happened.

What this overlooks is that the agenda of the evangelists was not to tell the truth in the sense of describing what actually happened, but to proclaim the truth that Jesus of Nazareth, crucified and risen, is the promised Messiah. IOW the gospels are neither biography nor history. They are evangelistic and apologetic.

And any literary technique acceptable in the first century that supports the evangelistic and apologetic claims of the gospel are fair game to be used. As far as the evangelist is concerned, what presents Jesus as the Christ is, by definition, true---whether it happened or not.

I think the best way to understand the birth stories, (both Matthew's and Luke's) is as midrash or pious fiction. Matthew, in particular, is concerned to present Jesus as fulfilling Messianic prophecies.


We don't actually know who wrote any of the gospels. The names were attached to them by tradition.


The birth of Jesus became important, not as history, but as theology. The birth stories counter adoptionist theologies which suggest that Jesus was not the Son of God at conception or birth, but only became so at his baptism. Perhaps, in this respect, Mark is supporting the adoptionist theology. At least he does not contradict it.


Oral tradition. We have to assume that most of what is in the four gospels of the NT as well as what is in many of the extra-canonical gospels was preached in Christian churches, and that at least the core story was well known via oral transmission. In some circles, the oral tradition was valued more highly than written gospels, at least for a few generations. Scripture did not really take the central role it has in today's Protestant churches until the Reformation. The Orthodox and Catholic churches have always valued the tradition of the Fathers at least on a par with scripture.


Whatever sources the evangelists might have shared, they seem to have felt free to arrange and modify them for their own purposes. Mark's gospel is very spare, focusing mostly on what Jesus did and containing little of his teaching. Matthew and Luke both add a lot of his teaching, (much of it the same and possibly from the same source) but arrange it differently. The synoptics place the cleansing of the temple at the end of Jesus' ministry because (among other possible reasons) it is the only time they show him in Jerusalem. John places it at the beginning as an announcement of his ministry. Matthew and Luke (and Mark when he presents Jesus teaching) have Jesus speaking in parables. John has him holding forth in long monologues.

Some differences may be due to different sources recalling events differently. Others may be a matter of what the evangelist thought important to record. Most of all there are differences in terms of who the evangelist is writing to, and the theological picture of Jesus he aims to present.

Excellent overview, Glaudys!

-TC

I'd like to pick up on these astute observations, just to keep the discussion going a bit.

If we assume Mark is either in accord with or unopposed to oral traditions of an adoptionist stance, and that Matthew and Luke are written afterwards to counteract such claims, would it be reasonable to conclude that adoptionist (an other types of Christologies) were in existence and competing with the "proto-orthodox" position? If so, shouldn't we allow for the "non-historical/mystical only" interpretations of Christ the same chance as being original and concurrent to the "historical/non-adoptionist" Christiologies?

If we are to entertain such a theory, we, of course, have to posit some sort of theory for the spontaneous rise of these various Christologies absent of an historical "Easter Event" ,no? Its one thing to say these competing sects sprang up at the same time, its quite another not to give some reason for it to occur, with different interpretations across various cultures in the Roman Empire.

We know that astrology is the high science of the day, which is also the reason "mythos" is the main vehicle for relating those interpretations. That is, everything is connected, and it just so happens that this time corresponds to the changing of an astological age, from Aries to Pisces. This impending change would be known to the astronomer/priests of the day whose job is to make sense of the New Age, and understand the purpose of its annointed avatar. Aries was associated with war, while Pisces is associated with redeeming baptismals. An age that might be looked forward to after the more warlord age comes to its close. The people are looking for some type of relief or promise of salvation.

Could this be the reason for including the "wise men", as a means of adding "scientific verification" to the theological testimony?

In this manner, we have various theologies in how to represent this new avatar, all focused around a savior figure for mankind, which is why, of course, Christianity is so closely associated with "the fish". Jesus chooses fishermen, its the original Christian symbol, et. al.

In light that we ought to view these Gospels as theologies and apologetics as opposed to histories (which leads us to contradictions and supernatural events), isn't it at least plausible that there was no "Easter Event" in any historical sense, but only in a theological sense, which doesn't and shouldn't have to be subjected to such standards. Its absurd to subject theological allegories to historical verification, as they are ahistorical by nature.

Doesn't it make more sense to see this as a very diverse ahistorical movement in theology spurred by the coming new astrological age. Afterall, theology always attempts to use the science of its day to corroborate its beliefs. Even today, people try to align the events in Genesis as a condensed, yet primitive version of evolution.

-TC

I think we have to use some caution here. That there may not have been a physically observable Easter event is a possibility. But we should not automatically go from that possibility to the possibility that there was no Jesus event.

Of course, there is no documentation that verifies the existence of Jesus either, but that is par for the course for anyone outside of officialdom in the era. If not verifiable, it is at least historically plausible that an itinerant rabbi did gather a following which was seen as a threat by the authorities and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. And it is plausible that the movement regrouped itself and continued to flourish after his death. Hence the appearance of an Easter event.

I would see the adoptionist/non-adoptionist perspectives on Christ as springing from the same original source. The difference between them is not in the Easter proclamation itself, but in how they understood the relation between the human Jesus of Nazareth and the Christ, the Son of God. Certainly, until the orthodox position became dominant, there were from the beginning of Christianity, many ways of delineating this relationship. What they all have in common is the connection back to the human Jesus.

In that respect, I would say it is Jesus himself, more so than any zeitgeist, who is the impetus behind the Easter event, even if the latter is understood in a totally mystic manner.

I will stand by what I said. If we are only discussing a single event, and a single piece of testimony, then yes, the simple fact that 1 person reports it and 2 others do not cannot be used to determine the truthfullness of the report...not even in court.

One has to establish other things, and overall pattern. In the abstract, in the single instance, it can be very difficult to determine if an event happened or did not happen. In this, the remarks of the judge in the McCartney/Mills divorce are instructinve. For instcne, Mills said McCartney abused her; McCartney said he did not. In judging the truth/falsehood of the claim the judge has to take the over-all pattern of testimony into account. On that basis he said in his ruling he found Mills to be "less than truthful" and McCartney to be "forthcoming" and "accuracte". Does that mean Heather Mills lied? Far from it; but we can, on that basis, choose not to believe her.

Similarly, if Matthew mentions something, and then Mark and Luke do not, does that mean it never happened? Well, how accurate do you find the reports of other events in Matthew to be? Is he a good witness? Some people simply have better memories than others; that does not mean the things they recall didn't happen, does it?




I think it is inaccurate to say the doctrine was not "conceived" until the council of Nicea. It may not have represented majority opinion until that time, but it is pretty clear in the Writings of Paul, more than two centuries early, that the idea was being kicked around. It may not have been fully fledged before the 320s, but it wasn't manufactured out of whole cloth at that time.


Reliable is as reliable does. I go back to the McCartney/Mills point; is the overall pattern of the testimony reliable enough, or accurate enough to meet a balance of probabilities?


But would the "general population" of a first century backwater write histories, or would the "elite"? There might well have been outrage; but it's amazing how people shut up when met with sharp swords, isn't it?

I think we can assume that there were occassional riots and distrubances in most parts of the Empire. But unless it was something that the local authorities could not handle on their own, easily, it seems unlikely to have attracted much notice.

And should someone have written "The Riots of Herodian Judea", would such a book have been widely circulated? And would it be likely to have survived. Let's be truthful, most books from antiquity have survived more by accident than design; the more copies that were made of a book, the more likely its survival...but how many people would, in the second or thrid centuries of the common era, have cared about such a book?




Well, since the Holy Family are reported to have fled before the massacre, they cannot have had access to information about the massacre, could they? Is it logical to ex[ect them to return to Bethlehem at any later date? I doubt that.

And, once again, we are assuming that the author of Matthew is an apostle, or knew them. I doubt both those things. I think the overwhelmening tone of the Gospels suggests that the writers never knew Jeshua, and never knew the apostles, either. The textual evidence just isn't there.



Well, remember too that the arrangement of the gospels in current Bibles is also arbitrary, and does not refelect the common arrangement in medieval times. ( I forget the exact order that was observed, but as I recall, Mark was first and Luke last).

And, as I have said a few times, now, I do not think Matthew was an eye-witness...nor that the author met any eye-witnesses. I think he collected a number of stories that were in circulation about Jeshua, and cobbled them together to make a framework for the sayings.



That isn't what he says. He says:


He says that "Others" have made accounts of things "handed down to us"f = by the disciples. I would say that, given the construction, we are talking about infromation which is, at best, third hand, and were more likely fourth hand.

To make this clear, we have:

• The "eye witnesses of the word" (first hand)
• The people they told (second hand)
• The people who were "handed down " the stories from the people who were orginally taught them (third hand)
• The "many" who wrote down accounts (fourth hand)

One might dispute my inference, and I am not wedded to it. I cannot see, howvere, how the material can possibly be better than second hand and I do think it is much more likely to have been third or fourth hand. This would also fit the likely time frame when Luke was written: 75 -100 CE.

(Jehsua is executed around 29 CE. The first generation witnesses cannot have been much younger than their mid twenties to mid thirties at that time. Since the average lifespan of a working class male was about 25, most of these witnesses would have been dead within 10 years or so following the crucifixion. That takes us to CE 39 for the terminus ante quem for first-hand recollections (in the main). There are nearly two generations between CE 39 and 75...which must lead us to assume that the accounts Luke is talking about are, mostly, fourth hand.)

Note that Luke says his acocunt is "orderly" not that it is "more accurate" than other accounts.



Did you know that Darwin's grandfather (Erasmus Darwin) was quite famous in his own right? Why? Because he was the last author in English to attempt to write science in poetry. Poetry is not, necessarily, less accurate than prose. It simply convy information differently.

As for being a visionary, lot's of people have them, and are quite normal and accurate in their day-to-day lives. There is no reason to suppose that recounting a vision means that everything they say is false.



I do not think they were ever intended to function as biography or history. I think they are reliable guides to what some, scattered, communities of people thought about "this guy Jesus" in the closing years of the First Century and opening years of the Second Century of the Common Era.

Within that limit -- and that is all I would ever claim for them (but then again, I remind you I am not a Christian) -- I think they are accurate and truthful.

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas