Steefen said
Dennis MacDonald lost this debate…
Even though I think Jesus probably (almost certainly) existed, and so I am on MacDonald’s side, I left the video with a sense that he lost the debate. I’m reminded of the old question, “If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?”
In the case for or against the historical existence of Jesus: “If Jesus really lived and died as an ordinary human being does (not born of a virgin, with no supernatural deeds, and with postmortem bodily decay), but no documentation exists other than the writings of his loyal followers, his fans who were gifted writers of myth, did he exist?” (Also, the powers that wanted him crucified may have considered his life too insignificant to write about, or may have wanted his record wiped from the pages of history.)
In addition, there is an underlying problem that was not addressed directly (although perhaps it was addressed when MacDonald said he was an atheist), and it concerns a philosophical question about the nature of existence. In Romans 8:9, Paul wrote: “you do not exist in the flesh but in the spirit… (Ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἀλλὰ ἐν πνεύματι…) Does any spiritually realized person exist “in the flesh”. Is the truth of who Jesus was visible to the skeptic, then or now? Or is the manifestation of the life of Jesus “in the flesh” only visible to co-participants “in the spirit”?
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Steefen said
Dennis MacDonald lost this debate…
Even though I think Jesus probably (almost certainly) existed, and so I am on MacDonald’s side, I left the video with a sense that he lost the debate.
I will probably buy, read, and study Richard Carrier’s book, On the Historicity of Jesus.
Robert wrote
Take a look at The Forgotten Playground by Matthew Ryan Hauge, starting on p 147 of the Festschrift to Dennis MacDonald, available ** you do not have permission to see this link **. Some familiarity with Homer seems to have begun at the very earliest stages of learning Koine Greek in the Hellenistic age. Of course, we have no idea, exactly what kind of education Mark received and I agree that many of MacDonald’s parallels are very weak. Mark was not as well educated as Luke, but he did learn to read and write Greek, and compose a rather well structured extended narrative at a very satisfactory level so he must have had a fairly good education.
Thanks Robert. There is no substitute for hard data. (The entire book looks interesting.) I don’t think there is any dispute about the kind of education available to Graeco-Roman elites. The question becomes, were the NT writers part of those elites? There is no doubt that Hellenistic culture influenced Second Temple Judaism but of course that’s very different than claiming that Mark is directly riffing on Homer. The connection is so tenuous that Macdonald is forced to view Mark as an “anti-epic”. So he identifies parallels but also regards differences as indications of a relationship. Heads I win. Tails you lose.
Robert said
Steefen said
“He already lost the Josephus as external source for the existence of Jesus when “called the Christ” was thrown out. …
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.”
You’ve misunderstood MacDonald’s full position on Josephus’ mentions of Jesus in his Antiquities of the Jews. While he, of course, does not accept that the full Testamonium Flavianum is authentic, he does nonetheless believe that the original text of Josephus did discuss Jesus here. Once one strips away the obvious Christian interpolations added to this passage, MacDonald reconstructs the original text of Josephus as something like this:
“At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. … He gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out. (Reconstructed from A.J. 18.63–64).
… The phrase “who was called the Christ” may be another Christian gloss [to A.J. 20.200–201], but probably not “the brother of Jesus,” which seems to be Josephus’s way of distinguishing between this James (Jacob) from several others. It would appear that the historian expected the reader to be more familiar with Jesus than with James, presumably because the reader already had encountered Jesus in Book 18. This observation is the strongest evidence that Josephus earlier had discussed Jesus.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **, pp 47-8. See also at 34:29 in your linked video.
This is essentially the same position as that of Steve Mason, John P. Meier, Bart Ehrman, and the majority of scholars. In the past you’ve contendeded that the entirety of the Testamonium Flavianum was original to Josephus and part of his fictional creation of the Jesus crucified by Pilate. Is that still your position or have you now adopted the position of Carrier that the Testamonium in its entirety was a Christian interpolation? Or perhaps (we can only hope) you now see the wisdom of the position adopted by the majority of scholars?
MacDonald could have clearly stated his “full position on Josephus’ mentions of Jesus in Antiquities” in the debate but he did not. MacDonald says the external evidence of Jesus’s existence is not at the Testimonium Flavianum 33:58 – 34:07. At 34:29 he says the reader knows something about Jesus from the Testimonium Flavianum. That something is not of a quality to rise to external evidence of Jesus’s existence, as he already stated at 33:58 – 34:07.
You are in error again as in so many other times.
Robert said
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.)
This too is not accurate. Origen mentions Jesus in Josephus ** you do not have permission to see this link **. On one point, he may indeed be confused as to the interpretation of James’ death, but Origen explicitly says that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Thus Origen apparently did find something about Jesus not being the Christ in Josephus’ writings, which is in fact suggested by a few versions of the Testamonium Flavianum. Who knows, maybe YouTube videos are not the best way to keep up on scholarship?
Another error: This too is not accurate.
It is accurate. The two debates are in agreement.
Robert: … The phrase “who was called the Christ” may be another Christian gloss [to A.J. 20.200–201].
The two debaters are in agreement and you who probably do not know why both of these scholars have come to agree on this are leaning in their direction.
We are going with the two scholars AND your leaning.
Robert said
Steefen said
MacDonald could have clearly stated his “full position on Josephus’ mentions of Jesus in Antiquities” in the debate but he did not. …
He clearly stated it in his publication, which I quoted for you. You’re welcome.
I am NOT saying thank you, to you. I bet you see that.
People who are watching a debate can judge the debate on its own merits. Nothing was misunderstood. He said what he said. People who are watching the debate are not required to remind him to say something better. He said what he said.
The two debaters are in agreement and you who probably do not know why both of these scholars have come to agree on this are leaning in their direction.
We are going with the two scholars; AND, your leaning is not required for judgment: they carry no weight: your past and current posts have been too biased and error-laden.
Stephen said
The connection is so tenuous that Macdonald is forced to view Mark as an “anti-epic”
That is probably an error. It is not that the connection between Mark and the Homeric epics are so tenuous,
it is that Jesus is a failed hero that Mark is an anti-epic.
Example: Odysseus sees a Utopia where figs appear on fig trees out of season, Jesus does not see a Utopia for his messianic, Son of Man Movement that figs appear on fig trees out of season.
Robert said
Steefen said
The two debaters are in agreement and you who probably do not know why both of these scholars have come to agree on this are leaning in their direction.
Why do you assume that I probably do not know why they are in agreement on the points on which they agree?
Steefen said
We are going with the two scholars; AND, your leaning is not required for judgment: they carry no weight: your past and current posts have been too biased and error-laden.
You keep saying that I am in error but you’ve yet to point to any specific error here. Again, please try to engage in polite discussion.
Again, you are the impolite one. Anyone can read the thread and other threads where you have been in error and I have specifically pointed to those errors. Feigning being without fault is hardly polite [Moderator: deleted unsubstantiated accusation of dishonesty].
Robert said
Steefen said
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.Even if we assume that Paul knew this story, why should we presume that this was relevant to the topics he discusses in his letter to the Roman Christians? Being based on questionable assumptions, it seems this argument has no real force. If you disagree, let’s hear your case.
If Paul knew not one story but both stories: 1) the exemplary faith of the Roman officer and Pontius Pilate initially finding Jesus faultless.
Paul’s letter to Romans should reference these two interactions. Paul represents Jesus and Jesus had these two interactions with Romans. With one, Jesus praises faith in one’s command; in the second, Pontius Pilate, representing Rome, found Jesus faultless; hence, if Rome found Jesus faultless once, it is likely that Paul and his letter can be received as faultless to the extent that it has integrity with Jesus.
It is a matter of Paul strengthening his introduction to the Romans by way of his Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ’s prior personal interaction with Romans.
You were in error
Error #1 for criticizing the Robert Fagels’ translation of the Odyssey. You specifically insulted MacDonald and Robert Fagels by thinking you had to provide the Greek and your translation as superior. The words for “seeing” and “out of season” are not the same in the Greek of Homer as in the Greek of Mark.
You were in error to say anyone is claiming that. What a Strawman!
Odysseus gazed involves seeing. What is the problem with Odysseus gazing and Jesus seeing all/everything including fig trees? There is no problem. Your error is making a problem when there is no problem.
MacDonald has said the claim is that one hero saw a Utopia where figs grew out of season; but, Jesus, who unlike the Homeric hero, was not a messianic hero, did not see figs growing out of season when he was hungry.
That is a strong point for Christian Sunday School Classes. Jesus was not being unreasonable expecting figs when fig trees do not produce figs. Sunday School Classes and Seminaries need the input of MacDonald to show they are missing the point by that interpretation.
Error #2 You said the MacDonald’s parallel between the fig tree out of season in the gospel of Mark and in the Odyssey is not strong because it is not based on two words: “fig” and “all”.
The correct answer is that the parallel is based on “fig tree out of season” as discussed above.
Error #3 Your insulting, impolite claim that I misunderstood what was said in a debate.
Correcting your error, I pointed out you cannot disparage a person for something MacDonald did not say in a debate but said in a book.
You are so quick to insult people’s capacity to understand without admitting the fault of the scholar. You overlooked that a few seconds earlier in the debate that MacDonald refused to value the Testimonium Flavianum but wants to use the devalued passage to support the “brother of Jesus called the Christ” as external evidence of the existence of Jesus when even the “brother of Jesus called the Christ” critically gets reduced to “brother of Jesus.”
Robert
I think the strawman is yours. I did not criticize the translation of Fagles. As far as I know, I have not even read Fagles‘ translation of the Odyssey. Nor did I provide my own translation of Homer, let alone claim that such was superior to that of Fagles or MacDonald. I did criticize your interpretation of MacDonald’s loose, harmonizing summary, which you distorted it to make it even more of a literal parallel to Mark than actually exists. I provided you with the Greek text and the English translation of A.T. Murray to illustrate this. Go back and re-read my post and maybe you will better understand my point. If not, I will gladly explain in more detail.
Steefen
Your errors exhibiting your prejudice against me is UNRELENTING. I did not distort anything. My statements are quotes from MacDonald’s book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. If anyone distorted anything it was the scholar, MacDonald.
“William R. Telford [author of Barren Temple] has demonstrated the widespread uses of the fig as a metaphor for Israel’s prosperity, sterility, and destruction… One of the blessings of the messianic age was that nature, transformed, would provide fruit even out of season, like the Garden of Eden before the fall of Adam and Eve. From this perspective, Jesus cursed the fig tree because it fell short of utopian expectations for the messianic age.”
MacDonald, Dennis. The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 13: “Untriumphal Entries,” p. 107.
Robert
You missed a very brief comment of MacDonald, which even seemed at odds with something he had said earlier. It is not a matter of finding fault or insulting anyone, it is merely helping you to better understand MacDonald’s position as he has explained it in his published works.
Steefen
I did not miss anything. I realized MacDonald said something that seemed at odds with something he had said earlier. So, MacDonald needs the help, not me.
So you want to come to the rescue, rightfully, to help MacDonald. Please help him. He lost the debate. The producer of the video called it a debate whether you want to correct the producers and the debaters and call it a discussion.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)