joelr
Well-Known Member
Sweepinf statement....what?
You made a weird comment about "blindly following scholarship" which makes no sense anyways.
But to say it as a religious person would be absurd because following ancient myths as if they are real would be a much more literal definition of following something blindly. Scholarship works extremely hard to present the best version of what is likely true and the consensus in any field is well evidenced. While religions have no such standard.
When considering history, that's rubbish, I'm sad to say.
Folks will wave an 'expert' flag high to prove a point, and so other folks will wave another (opposing) 'expert' flag high to debate it..... and it goes on.
As soon as you auto believe 'experts' you believe in part mythology, part truth..... You've joined a religion!
Is what people say when they know nothing about any field in academia. So all branches of knowledge are "religions"? While some details are debated there is vast consensus based 100% on evidence presented by scholars who devote their lives to a field. The irony here is you just described religion exactly? Each religion considers themselves an expert on the truth while being completely different from others. Many are even in the same religion and have opposite beliefs?
The Biblical historicity field is in consensus on the basics, as is archeology.
You clearly do not study historians or care about what is true to hold such bizarre ideas about academia.
Although I suspect when taking a medication, having surgery or flying in an aircraft you suddenly appreciate that these things were put through processes using knowledge gained in academia. It's just when it doesn't support beliefs in myths that you invent a conspiracy.
Then present evidence stronger than the current evidence. It isn't a cult any more than scientists who discovered atoms are a cult. Because they provide evidence.
some evidence
"That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”
"The traditional titles that are affixed to our manuscripts of the Gospels contain the phrase ευαγγελιον κατα (‘The Gospel according to… [insert name]). Thus, we have the Gospel according to Luke, the Gospel according to Mark, and so on. This is quite the atypical title convention for that time. In fact, it is unheard of in all of antiquity, as no other authors in the entire history of the Greco-Roman or Jewish world self-titled their books “according to” in the manner found on Gospel manuscripts. This observation alone is compelling reason to suspect that perhaps those titles were not originally affixed to the Gospels by their authors."
The age-old tradition that the canonical Gospels were authored by Mark the companion of Peter, Luke the physician to Paul, Matthew the tax collector, and John the Disciple comes down to us from the second century CE Patristic era of the Catholic Church.[2] Yet, even the Catholic Church now recognizes that those traditional titles are pseudonymous. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles (Euangelion kata Matthaion, Euangelion kata Markon, etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. […] It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves."
"To start, there is the observation that not a single Gospel writer names himself within the text as composer of any New Testament gospel. This means that the Gospels are internally anonymous. "
"It is also worth noting that the authorial anonymity of the Gospels stands out against the vast majority of other writings comprising the NT"
"Another indication that the Gospels were written anonymously is that the earliest external attestations to the Gospels refer to them without the traditional names attached"
"The Didache (pronounced did·eh·kay) is another example of an early Christian source from this period that treats the gospels anonymously."
https://bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/09/30/yes-the-four-gospels-were-originally-anonymous-part-1/
Jews did not believe their God could be a man or a son. But all religions in the region were being Hellenized and after the Greek occupation Judaism was no different. Savior demigods, fallen souls that return to heaven, God as an ultimate God rather than national God, all Hellenistic ideas that the Israelites used during the 2nd Temple Period.
You think I haven't read the gospels? That is bizarre? Why do religious folks always think they are so high and mighty and have this secret knowledge and no one else couldn't possibly have read this and still be a non-believer? Bizarre? Yeah I know the myth. You think reading a myth is "research"?
So if I read a story about Romulus that's all I need? If it says it's true then it must be true. And I did my research! Wow. What a great way to discover what is true! So if you want something to be true then you make up a conspiracy against scholarship and just read the fiction and boom, you did your research and it's all true. Super.
Fact is there IS ring structure and all sorts of mythic devices. Including highly improbable events like people just leaving their families to follow Jesus, It's fiction. Jesus scores higher on the rank Ragalin mythotype scale than any other fictional character ever.
Dying/rising savior demigods were all the rage in those religions before Jesus.
Mark also copies older fiction including the OT:
Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”
Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”
Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”
Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”
Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
On top of these links, Mark also appears to have used Psalm 69, Amos 8.9, and some elements of Isaiah 53, Zechariah 9-14, and Wisdom 2 as sources for his narratives. So we can see yet a few more elements of myth in the latter part of this Gospel, with Mark using other scriptural sources as needed for his story, whether to “fulfill” what he believed to be prophecy or for some other reason.
There are several uses of triadic ring structure to lay events out, this never happens in real life, it happens in fiction.
Mark also used the Jesus Ben Ananias narrative to create some of the Jesus story:
Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:
1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)
3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)
5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)
6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)
7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)
8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)
9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)
10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)
11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)
12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)
13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)
14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)
15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)
16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)
17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)
18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)
19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)
20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)
21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)
The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.
Last edited:
