Steefen
Dennis is saying Paul would not now the Hellenized myths of Jesus.
Paul would not know about the nonhistorical aspects of Jesus.
Paul should have known about Jesus healing the Roman officer’s slave and the faith exhibited by that officer–maybe it should have been referenced in Paul’s letter to the Romans.
Paul should have even sought out the Roman officer.
Richard
The Ignatius Letters and 2nd Peter have evidence that there were those who spoke against the historicity of Jesus, denying the gospel narratives.
Also, no where in Acts is James mentioned as the brother of Jesus. Dennis agrees.
James in Acts is killed by the sword not by stoning, as recorded by Josephus.
Stephen
I question that someone being trained in koine would receive a classical Greek education.
Steefen
The era of Koine Greek was 336 B.C. to AD 300 (Byzantine official use until 1453).
The Roman aristocracy who were educated by Greek slaves after Rome conquered Greece certainly were taught the works of Homer.
Virgil certainly was taught the works of Homer.
I would say Herod the Great’s son, Antipater, was taught the works of Homer when he was schooled in Rome.
Subsequent Jewish aristocracy would have been taught the the works of Homer.
Client kingdoms in the Roman Empire had the responsibility to practice and advance Hellenism. See The Many Faces of Herod the Great by Adam Kolman Marshak, Chapter 2 – Hellenistic Monarchy in the Graeco-Roman World.
Please re-state your counterpoint. Presently, it does not make any sense, whatsoever. It is nonsensical and has no realistic historical context.
Iskander Robertson said
they could eat and drink human flesh and blood in their imaginations? imagine instead james said, eat flesh of lamb,but think that you are consuming pig in your imagination. literal or not, something doesnt make sense.
I think eating “flesh and blood” or “body and blood”, even in imagination, is bad. The presumption of such a disapproval underlies Galatians 5:15 where Paul says, “But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.”
The connotation of forbidden desire comes through in the words of Luke 22:15, where it is Jesus who says, “I have eagerly desired (Ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο, lit. “with desire I have desired this”) to eat this Passover with you before My suffering.
Such language of desire on the lips of Jesus in Luke’s gospel is parallel to the language of forbidden desire in 1 Cor. 10:6, “Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did (ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν, lit. desirers of evil things as they also desired).
Nevertheless, eating the “body and blood” of Jesus as recommended in the New Testament where, properly understood by ** you do not have permission to see this link **, it is a “provocative prophetic symbolic action.” That said, I question an argument that this was not against the law. It seems to me that such desire–if it is focused on eating flesh and blood of humans–does violate the command, “Thou shalt not desire…”
Robert said
1) Wine is twice referred to symbolically in the Hebrew scriptures as the “blood of the grape” (דם , Gen 49,11 Dt 32,14);
2) In a community where some were known to follow Kephas (1 Cor. 1,12 3,22 9,5 15,5), it would be stupid for Paul to introduce such a novel practice;
3) Jesus’ prophetic gesture might have been deliberately provocative, perhaps even intended to shock; and
4) Such a prophetic gesture does not violate Jewish law
I had not heard this line of argument before, and I’m in large part persuaded, esp. in connection with this exegesis: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
StephenI question that someone being trained in koine would receive a classical Greek education.
Steefen
The era of Koine Greek was 336 B.C. to AD 300 (Byzantine official use until 1453).
The Roman aristocracy who were educated by Greek slaves after Rome conquered Greece certainly were taught the works of Homer.
Virgil certainly was taught the works of Homer.
I would say Herod the Great’s son, Antipater, was taught the works of Homer when he was schooled in Rome.
Subsequent Jewish aristocracy would have been taught the the works of Homer.
Client kingdoms in the Roman Empire had the responsibility to practice and advance Hellenism. See The Many Faces of Herod the Great by Adam Kolman Marshak, Chapter 2 – Hellenistic Monarchy in the Graeco-Roman World.
Please re-state your counterpoint. Presently, it does not make any sense, whatsoever. It is nonsensical and has no realistic historical context.
Sure the aristocracy benefited from such training (or more likely they were rich enough to own actual Greek slaves). But do you imagine that the rank and file of people being taught koine, destined for what amounted to clerical work, were given a classical Greek education? Can you cite an example of Homer being adapted into koine? (Homeric Greek and koine are two quite different beasts.) Can we seriously assume that the author of Mark, not exactly a dazzling Greek prose stylist, was fluent in Homeric Greek? (Don’t misunderstand me, I think the author of Mark was a genius. But I doubt he had ever heard of Homer.)
The real problem occurs when we examine Prof Macdonald’s examples of Homeric parallels. Is there a discernable relationship between Odysseus’ encounter with the Cyclops and Jesus’ encounter with the Gerasene demoniac? Is there a discernable relationship between Jesus “cleansing” the Temple and Odysseus killing the Suitors who vied to marry Penelope in his absence? Thin. Very thin. Especially when presented with the easy and obvious OT parallels. I think Mark did compose a lot of his gospel from literary parallels but it wasn’t Greece.
To Stephen and Robert Who Are Attempting to Side-Step the Issue of the Fig Tree in the Gospel of Mark and the Homeric Epics
He entered the city late in the day. “And there Odysseus stood, gazing at all this bounty” of glorious architecture and vegetation, including the fig trees that bore even out of season.
On entering the temple late in the day, Jesus “looked around at everything.”
The next day he cursed a fig tree for bearing no fruit, even though “it was not the season for figs.” [Mark 11: 13]
MacDonald, Dennis R. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13: “Untriumphal Entries,”
ps 108-109.
Homer, translated by Robert Fagles. The Odyssey, Book 6: The Princess and the Stranger and Book 7: Phaeacia’s Halls and Gardens. ps 168-190.
= = =
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
The Hebrew Messiah and the Hebrew God powering the Hebrew Messiah should have performed above and beyond Odysseus. Because they did not, Mark 11: 13 further foreshadows the problems of Holy Week.
Robert,
You have not added to what I have said, you have repeated what I have said.
He entered the city late in the day. “And there Odysseus stood, gazing at all this bounty” of glorious architecture and vegetation, including the fig trees that bore even out of season. – Fagles translation which does mention “all”.
On entering the temple late in the day, Jesus “looked around at everything.”
The next day he cursed a fig tree for bearing no fruit, even though “it was not the season for figs.” [** you do not have permission to see this link **]
Odysseus looked at all. Jesus looked around at everything : Odysseus looked around at everything, Jesus looked at all.
Critical in the parallel lines in opposite directions: fig trees out of season
You miss that and you will erroneously not see the parallel.
Looking at “fig” and “all” instead of “fig tree out of season” is the error.
The parallel lines in opposite directions are:
Odysseus sees figs on the fig tree out of season – one direction
Jesus does not see figs on the fig tree out of season – opposite direction
Dennis
I believe in a Q document.The Q document does not support the ideas of Paul. Jesus is a mortal, he is not a revelatory character.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
There are verses in the gospels that mirror the exact wording of Paul and sometimes just the meaning.
I disagree with you that the Q document does not support the ideas of Paul.I agree if you are saying the Q document does not support the idea that Jesus was a revelatory character.
Dennis
The non-gospel source of Jesus’ existence is not at the Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities 18, but at
Antiquities 20, Chapter 9, Sec. 1, Line 200 where one finds James the brother of Jesus called Christ.Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
That leaves you with a Jesus who gets mentioned in history 32 years after death, not for how he earned being called Christ, but for a questionable brotherhood with James. That lacks substance.Dennis
Mark mythologized Jesus of the Q document.
(Dennis wrote a book, Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero.)
Robert said
Steefen said
Critical in the parallel lines in opposite directions: fig trees out of season
You miss that and you will erroneously not see the parallel.
Looking at “fig” and “all” instead of “fig tree out of season” is the error.
The parallel lines in opposite directions are:
Odysseus sees figs on the fig tree out of season – one direction
Jesus does not see figs on the fig tree out of season – opposite direction
No, that parallel is indeed included in what I cited. What I tried to illusrate for you is that the language is less similar in the Greek than in the harmonizing English ‘translation’ provided by MacDonald or you. The words for ‘seeing’ and ‘out of season’ are not the same in the Greek of Homer and Mark. In fact, Homer does not actually say that Odysseus sees figs when they are out of season. Do you see that now?
There is no difference between Odysseus gazing and Odysseus seeing. Do not bother responding. You are in error and errors cannot be explained to satisfaction.
Richard
When Josephus speaks of James being the brother of Jesus, the Christ, he is referring not to a Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s (the biblical Jesus) but to an historical Jesus, Jesus ben Damneus.
Christ was NOT part of Josephus’ account, that was added later. Origen did not find it in his copy of the works of Josephus. (Dennis MacDonald agrees.)
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
So, James the brother of Jesus loses “the Christ.”
This weakens MacDonald’s claim that there was non-biblical sources for Jesus’ existence.
Steefen
Paul would not know the Hellenized myths of Jesus because the gospels came after Paul.
Paul should have known about Jesus healing the Roman officer’s slave.
Maybe the healing was a myth.
Paul should have known about the faith exhibited by that officer–maybe it should have been referenced in Paul’s letter to the Romans.
Paul should have even sought out the Roman officer.
Richard
The Ignatius Letters and 2nd Peter have evidence that there were those who spoke against the historicity of Jesus, denying the gospel narratives.
Steefen
Dennis should have shown why the Ignatius Letters and 2nd Peter were correct to criticize those who spoke against the historicity of Jesus.
Being persuasive in this argument required Dennis MacDonald to make a sound case for the historicity of Jesus. He already lost the Josephus as external source for the existence of Jesus when “called the Christ” was thrown out.
Also, no where in Acts is James mentioned as the brother of Jesus. Dennis agrees. Dennis has lost Josephus, did not support Ignatius Letters and 2nd Peter, and now he loses Acts.
James in Acts is killed by the sword not by stoning, as recorded by Josephus. Acts is a questionable source for establishing the historicity of Jesus when it cannot even get the death of James accurately described.
Dennis MacDonald lost this debate:
1) he relied on the Jesus called the Christ passage in Josephus where “called the Christ” was not in the original Antiquities by Josephus.
2) an historian mentions the biblical Jesus Christ 32 years after he dies and only in a questionable brotherhood with James.
3) Paul does not bring up the exemplary faith of the Roman officer and he does not bring up Pontius Pilate initially finding Jesus faultless.
4) Dennis does not explain and does not expand upon the Ignatius Letters and 2nd Peter for speaking against those who deny the historicity of the gospel narratives.
5) Add to losing “called the Christ” the absence of James being mentioned the brother of Jesus anywhere in the book of Acts, and to that add Acts being unreliable for giving an accurate account of James death.
// Dennis opened with the statement that Jesus cannot be a myth without historical coordinates, but as explained, support for that historicity was not presented with sufficient support. Richard Carrier explained that a nonhistorical, revealed Jesus is what is put forward by Paul, and that is insufficient for establishing the historicity of Jesus.
Dennis said that Q could be reconstructed but the gospels could be fan history, taking the Jesus of Paul and removing his pre-existence (and angelhood) in order to historicize him (while also mythologizing him and his death).
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)