Robert said
Steefen said
However, in Bart’s blog posts, he did not return to the subject?
I don’t recall. You can use the upgraded search function to look for this, but he certainly treats this issue much more comprehensively in Forgery & Counterforgery.
“I probably will not leave this conversation open” refers to the discussion from another site
Really? Which other site?
Whose videos have I been posting, Robert? for example, my last post? Bart Ehrman interviewed on YouTube channel Mythvision?
I start or jump into conversations on the YouTube channel videos. When people have had enough, we exit comments that way.
Which reminds me: I have to finish watching Bart’s Mythvision interview
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and see if there are any comments to make, conversations to start, or conversations to jump into.
The video already has
10,000+ Views
Robert said
Steefen said
I question Chris AND his peers for him thinking Mark primarily wrote for Gentiles.
We know that much of Mark’s audience was gentile because he attempts to explain some Jewish/Judean customs to his audience, eg, Mk 7,1-5). Yet this audience was obviously concerned with such Jewish issues and scriptures because the Markan Jesus refutes these Pharisees by citing the Jewish scriptures (7,6-7.10) and Mark interprets Jesus’ teaching here as fundamentally revising the import of Jewish kashrut (7,19b). Clearly some in Mark’s communal tradition or perhaps even still present in his community were interested in such issues.
Audience included Gentiles, especially the Gentiles of Edessa who sympathized with the Edessans who supported the Jewish Revolt.
They were not necessarily obviously concerned with such Jewish issues. For the Gentile Edessans who did not know, Mark provided the information and he was saying what was obvious to Jewish readers or not obvious to any Jewish readers who were not as orthodox or of the means as Pharisees and scribes.
Let’s say Domitilla the Younger and/or Flavia Domitilla was reading the Gospel of Mark, or let’s say an Asiarch was reading the Gospel of Mark, they would need to have that context.
Anyway,
The gospel of Mark is about a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, not a Gentile apocalyptic prophet.
This Jewish apocalyptic prophet, like later Jewish rebels against Rome wanted a kingdom of a Jewish god (Kingdom of God).
He wanted a kingdom of Jewish righteousness (Kingdom of Righteousness).
He wanted a kingdom of a Jewish heaven with Jewish angels (Kingdom of Heaven).
He wanted a kingdom led by a Jewish Son of Man (Daniel, 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch).
Those are messages for audiences who supported the revolt Jewish or Edessan or anyone else more important than Mark chapter 7.
Robert said
You do realize, of course, gentiles joined the ‘Christian’ movement early on and soon became the dominant majority within the churches, right? The gospel of Mark was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, and it was preserved by gentile Christians.If, as you believe, it was written by the Flavians primarily for Jews to show them the futility of revolt against Rome, it was a remarkable failure in attracting or convincing its intended Jewish readership. While the author was obviously not stoking further rebellion against Rome, there are no obvious indications that it was written to discourage further rebellion against Rome by Jews. The gentile Christian readership of Mark did not engage in the subsequent Kitos revolts of that of Bar Kokhba, but Jews certainly did.
Argumentation Specialist
What are you talking about, Robert?
Gentiles, where, joined what Christian movement, early on when?
The gospel of Mark written in Greek was preserved by what Gentile Christians, when?
The gospel of Mark was written by the Flavians? What Flavians? I do not know what you are talking about?
Maybe after AD 70 Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, and Berenice asked Yavne university intellectuals to come together and write the gospels. Maybe Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, Yavne university intellectuals, and whoever was pro-Roman made an attempt to extend apologies to Vespasian and Titus by writing peaceful Jewish messiah propaganda pieces.
Maybe Domitian’s views appeared in the Book of Revelation with Domitian calling his father the beast and calling his brother who was a replacement beast.
SO, who are Flavians to you, in the context of you saying I believe it was written by the Flavians? Are the Flavians, specifically, only Vespasian and Titus? Are Flavians, specifically, Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, Berenice, Yavne university professors, upper class pro-Roman Jews?
= = =
The Second and the Third Jewish Roman Wars would not be stopped by a propaganda piece written decades earlier?
Steefen said
Robert said
You do realize, of course, gentiles joined the ‘Christian’ movement early on and soon became the dominant majority within the churches, right? The gospel of Mark was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, and it was preserved by gentile Christians.
If, as you believe, it was written by the Flavians primarily for Jews to show them the futility of revolt against Rome, it was a remarkable failure in attracting or convincing its intended Jewish readership. While the author was obviously not stoking further rebellion against Rome, there are no obvious indications that it was written to discourage further rebellion against Rome by Jews. The gentile Christian readership of Mark did not engage in the subsequent Kitos revolts of that of Bar Kokhba, but Jews certainly did.
Argumentation Specialist
What are you talking about, Robert?
Gentiles, where, joined what Christian movement, early on when?
The gospel of Mark written in Greek was preserved by what Gentile Christians, when?
The gospel of Mark was written by the Flavians? What Flavians? I do not know what you are talking about?
Maybe after AD 70 Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, and Berenice asked Yavne university intellectuals to come together and write the gospels. Maybe Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, Yavne university intellectuals, and whoever was pro-Roman made an attempt to extend apologies to Vespasian and Titus by writing peaceful Jewish messiah propaganda pieces.
Maybe Domitian’s views appeared in the Book of Revelation with Domitian calling his father the beast and calling his brother who was a replacement beast.
SO, who are Flavians to you, in the context of you saying I believe it was written by the Flavians? Are the Flavians, specifically, only Vespasian and Titus? Are Flavians, specifically, Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, Berenice, Yavne university professors, upper class pro-Roman Jews?
= = =
The Second and the Third Jewish Roman Wars would not be stopped by a propaganda piece written decades earlier?
Nonsensical bull like what you state is why no one thinks you have a shred of credibility.
Robert said
Steefen said
What are you talking about, Robert?
Gentiles, where, joined what Christian movement, early on when?
Gentiles were very early part of the Christian movement, as is known from the letters of Paul.
The gospel of Mark written in Greek was preserved by what Gentile Christians, when?
From the time of it’s writing until the modern day. Unlike the gospel of Matthew, there’s no record of it being preserved by Jews in a Hebrew version.
The gospel of Mark was written by the Flavians? What Flavians? I do not know what you are talking about?
I’m referring to your onetime belief that Josephus and perhaps some other like-minded supporters of the Flavian dynasty wrote the gospels. Have you subsequently abandoned this idea?
No, those answers are too general.
Gentiles: Acts of the Apostles – Syria before 40 C.E.
Gentiles: Authentic Letters of Paul – the locations named by the Pauline Letter – when the letters were written or slightly before because the churches had to be established before he wrote them letters.
The Gospel of Mark was preserved by what Gentiles beginning when, not until.
If Mark was completed in 71 to 73, what Gentiles preserved it?
Jews read the Gospel of Mark and did not preserve it? How do you think the Bavli was able to respond to the gospels if the Jews in Babylon did not read the gospels?
Flavians does not necessarily mean Josephus and perhaps some other like-minded supporters of the Flavian dynasty. Flavians mean Flavian emperors and their families. Then one would branch out to Josephus.
Flavius Josephus, Agrippa II, Berenice, Yavne university professors, upper class pro-Roman Jews are possibilities. The Council of 15 and the Commune Asiae during the Flavian reigns, and the military that had to put down the Jewish Revolt had an influence on any writing for posterity about the Jesus of Galilee and other rebels that made them fight the war in the first place. Josephus goes back to the Mount of Olives when he recounts the rebels at the Mount of Olives during the Jewish Revolt. So, the gospels following their “peaceful messiah” also go to the Mount of Olives (not just because of the Egyptian Prophet but because the war account goes there).
The Babylonian Talmud is a compilation of rabbinic opinion written in the third to the fifth centuries in Babylon (present-day Iraq) and in what is today Israel. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Babylonian Talmud contains reactions to the Jesus described in the gospels.
That would be a Jewish audience for the gospels, not a Gentile audience.
= = =
There is also the tradition of Jesus writing a letter to Abgar V in Edessa.
The gospels made it to Edessa.
= = =
Most scholars agree that Paul actually wrote seven of the Pauline epistles (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), but Ephesians is pseudepigraphic.
Paul lived in Ephesus.
I would think he would establish a church there and write a letter to them.
What papyri fragments were found in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, and Rome and when?
Philippi was a major Greek city northwest of the nearby island, Thasos. Its original name was Crenides
What libraries and universities were in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi?
However, Paul was not a reader of gospels, so I throw that out: Gentiles in the places of authentic Pauline letters were not the people who preserved the gospels.
= = =
Maybe Clement and Flavia Domitilla were the Gentiles who along with Flavius Josephus preserved the gospels.
Maybe gospels that made it to Edessa were also preserved.
Maybe gospels were preserved in Rome since they serve propaganda purposes for Vespasian and Titus. They along with Josephus would be proud to have the gospels in their possession, gospels about a peaceful messiah who in the end does not have a god that grants the messiah national independence. Agrippa I, so friendly to Rome is killed. Jesus is killed.
The lesson is Rome did not want Judea broken off from the Empire by any type of Jewish messiah.
Jesus in the late 20s / early 30s did not exist. He was a backdated character of propaganda at least responding to the Jesus of Galilee and his mariners who led rebellious revolt against Vespasian and Titus at the Battle of Galilee. Jesus of Galilee and his rebels were defeated at the Battle of Galilee.
Steefen said
The Babylonian Talmud is a compilation of rabbinic opinion written in the third to the fifth centuries in Babylon (present-day Iraq) and in what is today Israel. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Babylonian Talmud contains reactions to the Jesus described in the gospels.
That would be a Jewish audience for the gospels, not a Gentile audience.
= = =
There is also the tradition of Jesus writing a letter to Abgar V in Edessa.
The gospels made it to Edessa.
= = =
Most scholars agree that Paul actually wrote seven of the Pauline epistles (Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), but Ephesians is pseudepigraphic.
Paul lived in Ephesus.
I would think he would establish a church there and write a letter to them.
What papyri fragments were found in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi, and Rome and when?
Philippi was a major Greek city northwest of the nearby island, Thasos. Its original name was Crenides
What libraries and universities were in Galatia, Corinth, Philippi?
However, Paul was not a reader of gospels, so I throw that out: Gentiles in the places of authentic Pauline letters were not the people who preserved the gospels.
= = =
Maybe Clement and Flavia Domitilla were the Gentiles who along with Flavius Josephus preserved the gospels.
Maybe gospels that made it to Edessa were also preserved.
Maybe gospels were preserved in Rome since they serve propaganda purposes for Vespasian and Titus. They along with Josephus would be proud to have the gospels in their possession, gospels about a peaceful messiah who in the end does not have a god that grants the messiah national independence. Agrippa I, so friendly to Rome is killed. Jesus is killed.
The lesson is Rome did not want Judea broken off from the Empire by any type of Jewish messiah.
Jesus in the late 20s / early 30s did not exist. He was a backdated character of propaganda at least responding to the Jesus of Galilee and his mariners who led rebellious revolt against Vespasian and Titus at the Battle of Galilee. Jesus of Galilee and his rebels were defeated at the Battle of Galilee.
A Jewish audience 300 years after Mark was written, and 300 years after Gentiles had preserved the Gospel. Also, the Mishnah references to Jesus are interpolations (which Johann Maier and John P. Meier have both held). The only references of value are in the Gemara, which are from the 6th century onward, and so late that they can’t possibly help you. In fact, even if the Mishnah bits were authentic, they couldn’t possibly help you, since even those are clearly parodies of the Gospels long after the Gospels were disseminated (as Peter Schaefer has shown in his 2007 volume on the subject). If you think the Talmud is evidence of anything about Jesus or the Gospels, then you simply don’t understand the evidence. I mean… you clearly don’t understand it given that you can’t even cite it properly.
“I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.
……
Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”
R.Bultmann
Jarek said
“I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist.……
Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community.”
R.Bultmann
Sane people can most certainly doubt Jesus existed. In fact, I think it is perfectly reasonable to do so. Bultmann was just a sour old sport who had to live through the aftermath of the crappy Christ Myth debate in Germany which he resented. That being said, I don’t think any alternatives to historicity presented so far have been remotely convincing. I find Paul-Louis Couchoud’s 100 year old model of mythicism to be more convincing than anything promoted today.
Interesting case of existance and non-existance. Marta Przyszychowska has devoted her entire career to Gregory of Nyssa. And in the end it turned out that he made up his sister.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert
Steefen, you’re missing the point. My only point with respect to Paul’s letters was merely to show that gentiles joined the Christian movement early on. It was in direct response to your question: “Gentiles, where, joined what Christian movement, early on when?”
Steefen
What are you talking about, Robert?
Gentiles, where, joined what Christian movement, early on when?
The gospel of Mark written in Greek was preserved by what Gentile Christians, when?
Robert
Gentiles joined the Christian movement early on [evidenced by Paul’s letters].
Steefen
Were we not talking about Gospel of Mark and the Gentile audience for Gospel of Mark? Answer: Yes.
What proof do you have that Pauline Christianities were major consumers of the Gospel of Mark, especially when Paul told at least one of his Pauline Christian communities to follow his teachings and not the teachings of the Jerusalem church?
Robert
There is no evidence of early (or late) Jewish copying of the gospel of Mark.
Steefen
Copying is not the only way to preserve. Manetho is preserved in the works of Josephus. Jesus of the gospels is preserved in the Babylonian Talmud.
Robert
More than most critical scholars, I do emphasize the Judaic characteristics that are still present in the gospel of Mark, but it is undeniably written for a largely gentile audience
Steefen
What Gentile audience?
1 Gentiles in Edessa?
2 The Gentiles who were following Paul?
3 The Gentiles of Rome flipped into Christianity (Clement and Domitilla)?
4 The Gentiles of Rome who wanted to be proselytes of Judaism AND add to post-Temple Destruction orthodoxy a peaceful messiah as opposed to violent rebel messianism which got the Temple destroyed?
5 Gentiles who were following Serapis in Alexandria?
6 Any Gentiles who were sympathetic to Judea becoming independent of the Roman Empire?
Robert
We know that much of Mark’s audience was gentile because he attempts to explain some Jewish/Judean customs to his audience…
Steefen
Using that line of reasoning, the most you can reasonably say is Mark’s intended audience was Jews and maybe Gentiles who were not observant in the same way Pharisees and scribes were observant or cared to be, especially if they were not Jews. They would need Jewish/Judean customers explained to them because in the passage of Mark, Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees and scribes for being overly concerned with the letter of the law.
Conclusion: you overstepped by saying because an author wrote something to explain how the Pharisees and scribes were being overly literal, people who were not like Pharisees and scribes must be the audience, even if they were not Jews. That makes absolutely no persuasive sense. You have not identified a secondary audience (Gentiles) for the gospel of Mark, no geography, no demographics. Your argument fails.
What stands is that, yes, Emperor Vespasian, Emperor Titus, Josephus, and Roman citizens did not want to fight a war of Jewish messianism again; hence, the propaganda of turning a rebel, war-loving Jesus of Galilee into a spiritual leader Jesus of Galilee. The audience for the Gospel of Mark are those who need to learn how to live within the Roman Empire without letting their religion turn them into rebels for independence from the Roman Empire. Rome did not want that, not even from a spiritual leader Jesus who got crucified by Rome. Period.
There is no evidence of early (or late) Jewish copying of the gospel of Mark.
SteefenCopying is not the only way to preserve. Manetho is preserved in the works of Josephus. Jesus of the gospels is preserved in the Babylonian Talmud.
And there are no early sources quoting or using the Gospel of Mark either.
The earliest Jewish sources are complete fabrications in Josephus which do not quote the Gospel of Mark, allusions to a Jewish scribe using polemics not stemmed from the Gospels. The earliest Jewish texts using the Gospels are Talmudic, at best 2-300 years after the Gospel of Mark was written. As such, we have absolutely no evidence of Jews preserving the Gospel of Mark early on at all. Literally none.
Also your theory is so crackpot it is no wonder that no one takes Roman piso theories from Carotta, and others you clearly idolize seriously in academia. Just people with irrelevant degrees. Go get your work peer reviewed and published in academic publishers. Then we can talk and see if any of it makes a lick of sense, because your posts are nearly unintelligible.
Robert
scholars see Mark’s audience as largely gentile,
Steefen
Why would a Gentile even care to read a post-war gospel of the losing side? Your scholars are in error–your critical scholars are in error. Do you really think Gentiles who knew about the apocalyptic Tribulation of the Jewish Revolt and the defeat of Jesus of Galilee at the Battle of Galilee were interested in an earlier made up Jesus who wants people to partake of his body and blood while sacrifices are still being made at a grand Temple not yet finished with its renovations? A human sacrifice for sin was not adopted by Temple establishment. Did Agrippa I or any orthodox Jewish person stop going to the Temple for Yom Kippur and Passover, years 33 to 44? Was Yom Kippur changed in anyway because Jesus died for people’s sins? No.
It is more likely that the Son of Mary who sacrifices his body and blood comes on the scene after the son of Mary Bethezuba has his body and blood offered. After Jesus’ Heavenly Father’s Temple and Holy of Holies were misused and destroyed can you have a post-Temple Destruction stand-in Son of Mary for sacrificed animals.
I would like to see Paul trying to tell people: no money changing needed for animals to sacrifice at Yom Kippur at the Temple because JESUS was the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins when he was crucified. Jesus’ blood is the blood of the lamb for the Passover.
Steefen said
Robertscholars see Mark’s audience as largely gentile,
Steefen
Why would a Gentile even care to read a post-war gospel of the losing side?
Why would Jewish people care to read a book that undermines several aspects of their law codes, religion, and sensibilities, and has numerous imperial cult references that were outright blasphemous to them, and which they fought to rebel against? Seriously… your entire theory is nonsensical.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)