Did Pontius Pilate exist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

Save you from what? Not everyone believes a man called Jesus was teaching just doom and gloom.

So you would argue that Mark does not present Jesus as any kind of savior?

Cultural anthropology would posit many healers traveling around teaching and healing, this one just happened to do it for food. Why make a myth of a man who taught and needed to eat to survive?

Again I don't understand you. You claim that Mark was not making a hero, but then seem to ask me to ignore the heroic parts of Mark's Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

So you would argue that Mark does not present Jesus as any kind of savior?

Gmark does

this has no bearing on topic or in context to my statement that not all historians claim Jesus was a apocalyptical teacher.

Again I don't understand you. You claim that Mark was not making a hero, but then seem to ask me to ignore the heroic parts of Mark's Jesus

Back that claim, where did I state that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The answer is that in Greek (where everything from word order to morphology can change so easily), too much of Matthew and Luke have identical or nearly identical material that is completely lacking from Mark. Moreover, what material they do use from Mark is rearranged by each author differently to suit their narrative needs (making them clearly reliant on Mark in part, and therefore after). There is no way to explain the identical or nearly identical extensive portions of Greek in Matthew and Luke by saying they are both "revisions" of Mark. Nor do either show any signs of using each other. For example, if Matthew used Mark but added all the material generally thought to come from a source called Q, and Luke just copied this from Matthew, we would expect to find the kind of use of Matthew's "extra" material in Luke that we do of Mark's. We'd also expect that any variance was relatively consistent, in that either Luke kept the same wording as Matthew, or changed it. But we don't find either. Instead, there are places where it appears Luke has the original wording, and Matthew has changed it to fit into his narrative. And vice versa.

OK. I haven't studied the rest of your message yet, but I have studied this first paragraph pretty closely, reading it numerous times. Even so I'm unable to parse it with any confidence. So I have extracted major points which I paraphrase and list below, asking you to clarify for me. Please tell me if I've got them right or wrong and expand on any errors in my interpretation.

1) Matthew and Luke share identical material [Q?] not found in Mark.

2) Matthew and Luke share identical materal from Mark but arrange that material differently in their stories. [yes. revision.]

3) Matthew and Luke do not use each other. Because if Matthew used Mark plus Q, and Luke copied Matthew, we would find the “kind of use” of Matthew's Q material in Luke that we do of Mark's. [This argument doesn’t grammatically track for me. I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Could you clarify?]

4) Luke neither keeps the same wording as Matthew nor changes it. [??]

5) It appears Luke has the original wording [what original wording?], and Matthew has changed it to fit into his narrative. And vice versa.

My wild*** guess is that you're saying that Matthew and Luke aren't revisions of Mark, but rather revisions of Mark plus Q? If so, that has no effect on my argument, does it?

I'm interested in pursuing this. It's actual discussion of the issue. Refreshing.

MY MAJOR QUESTION: Can you point to any other three published books with the same sort of language-tracking as the synoptics but which are considered independent stories of the same events? If someone could either point me to such books or either explain why my question is somehow irrelevant, I might actually change my mind. But so far, no one has answered.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Back that claim, where did I state that?

I'm sorry, outhouse, but sometimes different minds just can't seem to coordinate themselves with one another. That seems to be the case with you and me. I just don't understand what you are saying much of the time.

I'll continue to try, but I can't answer questions which I don't even understand.

 

[1robin]

So you would argue that Mark does not present Jesus as any kind of savior?



Again I don't understand you. You claim that Mark was not making a hero, but then seem to ask me to ignore the heroic parts of Mark's Jesus.

I know your name is ambiguous, but isn't agruing aginst the Bible and for an impotent God with me and then the opposite here stretching the term a bit. BTW hello agian ambiguous guy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know your name is ambiguous, but isn't agruing aginst the Bible and for an impotent God with me and then the opposite here stretching the term a bit. BTW hello agian ambiguous guy.

Hello again to you, too, 1robin.

I only argue for the truth, of course, and the truth is that the truth is ambiguous.

 

[1robin]

Hello again to you, too, 1robin.

I only argue for the truth, of course, and the truth is that the truth is ambiguous.

Is the truth that truth is ambiguous, its self, ambiguous? You did not explain why you have defended the Bible here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is the truth that truth is ambiguous, its self, ambiguous?

Of course. How could it not be?

For example, maybe prophets of God are real things. I don't think so, but anything is possible. In that case, a prophet could tell us the unambiguous, god-given Truth. That wouldn't make any sense -- that God would pick out one individual man to tell us His Great Truth... but anything is possible.

You did not explain why you have defended the Bible here.

I'm afraid I don't even know what you mean. I've defended the Bible? Howso?

 

[1robin]

Of course. How could it not be?

Jaylo might agree. Forget I mentioned her.

For example, maybe prophets of God are real things. I don't think so, but anything is possible. In that case, a prophet could tell us the unambiguous, god-given Truth. That wouldn't make any sense -- that God would pick out one individual man to tell us His Great Truth... but anything is possible.

Any God worth worshiping would undoubtably do just that many times over. A God that would not is not worth considering.

I'm afraid I don't even know what you mean. I've defended the Bible? Howso?

I do not have time to verify but I could swear you have been defending bible doctrine or claims recently here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Any God worth worshiping would undoubtably do just that many times over. A God that would not is not worth considering.

No god worth worshipping would send His Truth directly to anyone else more truly than He sends it to me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

MY MAJOR QUESTION: Can you point to any other three published books with the same sort of language-tracking as the synoptics but which are considered independent stories of the same events? If someone could either point me to such books or either explain why my question is somehow irrelevant, I might actually change my mind. But so far, no one has answered.

As this is your MAJOR question, I hope you don't mind if I start with it.

1) Why seek parallels? There is no other pair of works known in existence which are akin to the Iliad and Odyssey. Scholars argued for years about whether either one could actually be produced by a single author, let alone be composed orally. Then Lord & Parry published their works, and further studies on orality showed that it is in fact possible (as shown first by their contemporary studies of oral cultures) for a single "oral" composer to create extremely long pieces on the fly. Of course, not on the artistic level of Homer, but that's simply a matter of artistic skill, not memorization ability. And we have mountains of evidence on parallels between the gospels and not only ancient works but also modern eyewitness and 2nd-hand testimony (in studies from criminal justice to psychology to N.T. scholarship) showing how cultures use oral and written sources, building off one another to create oral and/or written works in much the same way as the gospels. But most of this (as opposed to all, in the case of the Iliad and Odyssey) is modern. It comes from studies like Kenneth Bailey's, Ruth Finnegan, even work in neuroscience (my field). Why wouldn't we have ancient parallels that are closer in their uses of sources to the gospels?

As I already explained, perhaps it has something to do with how vastly limited remaining sources are. We have a tiny, tiny, tiny, fraction of composed works, even from well known authors. We know this because vast amounts of Greco-Roman historiography comes down to us only in passing references or quotations in the few surviving works we have. That give us some idea as to the extent to which our sources do not represent what was actually written even among "great" (respected) authors. From the papyri recovered, we know how much more we lack with respect to the kind of sources the gospels were: texts written by nobody's for (initially) a rather limited audience to say the least. The final nail in the coffin against the possibility of Q came from the recovery of Thomas, previously unknown. It is a "sayings" gospel akin to Q, yet independent of it.

We have no parallels for Aristotle, as what we have are akin to "class notes" prepared by a teacher for students. We have no parallel to "Homer". We have no parallel to Herodotus until those who copied his style in much the same way Matthew and Luke built upon Mark. We have no parallel to the stituation the early Christian texts inform us about: a newly formed Jewish sect divided from its basis by not only their originator/nexus (Jesus), but also their mission to spread the "good news" and the literary needs that accompanied it. However, we find something very, very very, similar in the closest group we have to the early Christians: the rabbinic movement. The ENTIRETY of Rabbinic texts rest upon extensive copying of scripture (like the gospels) as well as extensive use of quotes, stories, and sayings from important Rabbis.

2) There's your parallel: the rabbis. Plenty of independent texts, sources, etc., which rely on extensive copying, quotations, anonymous sources, uncited use of earlier works, etc.

3) As you can't read any of these langauges, what do you mean by language tracking? And more importantly, why is this relevant? New cultural situations create new approaches without the kind of paralells you seem to think necessary ALL THE TIME.

4) You are happy to read into the gospels parallels with "hero creation/worship" based on some invented hero archetype (based, it would seem, upon Jungian pseudocience and/or those like Campbell who used this pseudoscience to read archetypes into history, setting it back years). There are far more parallels between the gospels and Greco-Roman biographies than there are any "hero" archetype.

1) Matthew and Luke share identical material [Q?] not found in Mark.

Yes

2) Matthew and Luke share identical materal from Mark but arrange that material differently in their stories. [yes. revision.]

Yes.

3) Matthew and Luke do not use each other. Because if Matthew used Mark plus Q, and Luke copied Matthew, we would find the “kind of use” of Matthew's Q material in Luke that we do of Mark's. [This argument doesn’t grammatically track for me. I don’t know what you’re trying to say. Could you clarify?]

Q is a seperate source. If Matthew and Luke both used it, then they used an independent source other than Mark. If they didn't, then we'd have to explain this material. In other words, if all the synoptics are just revisions of Mark, we have to explain why Matthew and Luke have too much in the way of identical or nearly identical lines not found in Mark. Now, it's easy to explain all three by appealing to eyewitness studies. Three people recounting the same story are likely to differ and to share much. However, I don't buy that, but for other reasons than grammatical/textual analysis of the type you refer to, and certainly not based on some need for parallels. Bottom line, though, is the need to explain this usage. Without positing at least one other source independent of Mark (like Q), it must be that Matthew depends on Luke or vice versa. We can, without even looking at Mark, see how the shared material of Mark used by the other synoptics differs or is the same (or similar). We can do this for the shared material not in Mark as well. And we find it remarkably similar to their use of Mark in that there is no straightforward tracking between the two. Both rearrange, rephrase, alter, or keep largely the same the lines of "Q" they use just as they do with Mark. Each works these lines into their narratives in different places, altering more or less as required by the authors' purposes. Same as they do Mark. Yet Mark has none of these lines.

My wild*** guess is that you're saying that Matthew and Luke aren't revisions of Mark, but rather revisions of Mark plus Q? If so, that has no effect on my argument, does it?

It does. Because it means we have a source at least as early as Mark independent of Mark. And it has a parallel (Thomas) which is clearly independent.

And this means we have three early, independent sources for Jesus: Mark, Q, and Paul (who tells us little about Jesus, and likely never even met him, but did know his brother).

 

[steeltoes]

Paul met Jesus' brother? Later gospel writers describe Jesus' family as non-believers. There appears to be a contradiction at play there. What happened to James, son of Zebedee?

Scholars that read Greek contradict each other as to how 'brother of the Lord' can be interpreted. Maybe when the experts get it together we might know something.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul met Jesus' brother? Later gospel writers describe Jesus' family as non-believers.

So we should ignore someone who actually met Jesus' brother? Particularly when this same brother is identified in the gospels and Josephus?

There appears to be a contradiction at play there. What happened to James, son of Zebedee?

Identified differently

Scholars that read Greek contradict each other as to how 'brother of the Lord' can be interpreted. Maybe when the experts get it together we might know something.

So quote some scholars.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

1) Why seek parallels?

Because I want to know if the historical-Jesus crowd is involved in special pleading, as it seems to me. If there were various instances of what looks like plagiarism in published, independent books throughout history, then I would have a lesser problem with the synoptic gospels, with seeing them as legitimate independent accounts.

There is no other pair of works known in existence which are akin to the Iliad and Odyssey. Scholars argued for years about whether either one could actually be produced by a single author, let alone be composed orally. Then Lord & Parry published their works, and further studies on orality showed that it is in fact possible (as shown first by their contemporary studies of oral cultures) for a single "oral" composer to create extremely long pieces on the fly. Of course, not on the artistic level of Homer, but that's simply a matter of artistic skill, not memorization ability. And we have mountains of evidence on parallels between the gospels and not only ancient works but also modern eyewitness and 2nd-hand testimony (in studies from criminal justice to psychology to N.T. scholarship) showing how cultures use oral and written sources, building off one another to create oral and/or written works in much the same way as the gospels. But most of this (as opposed to all, in the case of the Iliad and Odyssey) is modern. It comes from studies like Kenneth Bailey's, Ruth Finnegan, even work in neuroscience (my field). Why wouldn't we have ancient parallels that are closer in their uses of sources to the gospels?

This is all so vague that I can't find anything useful in it. Can you point to three books, from any time or any culture, which claim to be independent accounts but which share so much parallel language as the synoptics?

The final nail in the coffin against the possibility of Q came from the recovery of Thomas, previously unknown. It is a "sayings" gospel akin to Q, yet independent of it.

This seems off-point but I'm curious. You're saying that you don't believe in Q?

We have no parallels for Aristotle, as what we have are akin to "class notes" prepared by a teacher for students. We have no parallel to "Homer".

Yes, yes... and we have no parallels for Harry Potter or for One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or for....

Really, Legion, doesn't such talk seem like an attempt at distraction from my point? I'm asking about language-tracking in different published texts, and you are arguing that all published texts are different. Not clean logic, is it?

We have no parallel to Herodotus until those who copied his style in much the same way Matthew and Luke built upon Mark.

Ah, here's a bit of possible meat. You are saying that books are published which contain chunks of text copied verbatim from Herodotus' work? And these books purport to be (and are accepted as) independent accounts of various events?

Could I have the names of those books, please, so I can read about them?

We have no parallel to the stituation the early Christian texts inform us about: a newly formed Jewish sect divided from its basis by not only their originator/nexus (Jesus), but also their mission to spread the "good news" and the literary needs that
accompanied it.

OK. So you're saying that Matthew and Luke knew that they were not writing independent accounts of Jesus' life? Instead, they were building a theological basis for a new religion?

But that concedes my point, doesn't it? My point is that the Jesus stories are revisions, not independent accounts.

However, we find something very, very very, similar in the closest group we have to the early Christians: the rabbinic movement. The ENTIRETY of Rabbinic texts rest upon extensive copying of scripture (like the gospels) as well as extensive use
of quotes, stories, and sayings from important Rabbis.

Copying scripture?? So Matthew and Luke were not writing about the life of Jesus? They were instead 'copying scripture'? Mark was already 'scripture' by the time Matthew and Luke wrote? If so, that means that M & L would not have been free to change anything in Mark, wouldn't it?

So are you agreeing with me? Matthew and Luke are not independent accounts of the life of Jesus... but are rather accounts created by cobbling together quotes, stories and sayings from Mark, Q, Thomas, oral tales, etc.?

I dont' want to waste my time arguing an issue which we may agree on. Can you tell me if you think Matthew and Luke are independent recountings of the life of Jesus or whether they were created from older material already existing when they wrote?

Because it means we have a source at least as early as Mark independent of Mark. And it has a parallel (Thomas) which is clearly independent.

And this means we have three early, independent sources for Jesus: Mark, Q, and Paul (who tells us little about Jesus, and likely never even met him, but did know his brother).

Q is a sayings' source. So why do you assume that Jesus was being quoted in Q, rather than it being a collection of graffiti from the temple wall? (Serious question. Upon what evidence do you accept the sayings as having come from a man named Jesus?)

Same question about Thomas.

As for Paul, I don't accept him as having known a thing about the earthly Jesus and I seriously doubt the brother-of-Jesus business, although I haven't studied it in depth. I doubt it because it is the only seemingly good evidence for an historical Jesus, set against the massive evidence for a mythical Jesus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you care to debate the Paul-met-James business, though, I'll be glad to examine it with you. It's probably time for me to form an informed opinion about it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Paul met Jesus' brother? Later gospel writers describe Jesus' family as non-believers. There appears to be a contradiction at play there. What happened to James, son of Zebedee?

Scholars that read Greek contradict each other as to how 'brother of the Lord' can be interpreted. Maybe when the experts get it together we might know something.

I think this is why some people leave the Book of James out of the canon, you would have to research this further however, I'm not aware of the details.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Legion: Let me know if you think I've skipped over any important issues from your previous messages to me. I don't want to go back and answer every little thing, fracturing our line of thought, but I'll answer any specific question or issue which you'd like me to address.

 

[1robin]

No god worth worshipping would send His Truth directly to anyone else more truly than He sends it to me.

That was quite bold. Why in the world not? Is everyone equally worthy? Is everone equally obedient? Is every one equally capable? Is every one equally willing? Why would he give pure revelation to someone who hates him or it? (not you).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That was quite bold. Why in the world not? Is everyone equally worthy? Is everone equally obedient? Is every one equally capable? Is every one equally willing? Why would he give pure revelation to someone who hates him or it? (not you).

No one seeks God more sincerely than I do. It's just not possible.

And if God will speak to a man who doesn't sincerely seek Him, while refusing to speak to me... then He isn't a God worth having.

Anyway, since no man seeks God more truthfully than I seek God, why would I believe another man when he claims that God has spoken to him, but not to me?

 

[1robin]

No one seeks God more sincerely than I do. It's just not possible.

And if God will speak to a man who doesn't sincerely seek Him, while refusing to speak to me... then He isn't a God worth having.

Anyway, since no man seeks God more truthfully than I seek God, why would I believe another man when he claims that God has spoken to him, but not to me?

I have began something I might soon regret. How have you verified that you are the most sincere seeker of God on earth through out history? Have you secluded yourself away from people in a cave with all the texts you could find for 30 years as the early saints did? One even stayed on top of a poll for years. I would bet that not in a single category of sincerety are you the world greatest given the odds. Unless ambiguity is the measure of all sincerety.

 

[steeltoes]

So we should ignore someone who actually met Jesus' brother? Particularly when this same brother is identified in the gospels and Josephus?



Identified differently

So quote some scholars.

Two non Pauline epistles begin:


James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ


Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James.


Do you get the impression from reading these epistles that James is the brother of Jesus?


Anyways, as long as you believe that you have the correct interpretation then who am I to point out inconsistencies?