John vs Mark Late Easter Article

[ReasonableDoubt]

Some more data to help understand what Eusebius was really saying (if, indeed, he even coined his own chapter headings, which according to the information from the earlier link is not certain).

It seems pretty clear that triadboy et al prefer not to be bothered with such things.

 

[triadboy]

With what part of do you disagree?

Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris(3) write at great length against Celsus...

Celsus was a riot! He confronted the early xians with their own mythology and laughed at the idiocy of BELIEVING a myth as history. A myth that was the same as other myths!!

Consider how subtle are the arguments, how insidious the engines with which they overthrow what the spirit of the devil has wrought.

There's some good xian yapping there.

 

[ceo_esq]

nope

I think you'll find that the precise chapter heading you quoted is, in fact, discussed on the linked page.

 

[triadboy]

I think you'll find that the precise chapter heading you quoted is, in fact, discussed on the linked page.

I found this though at ReasonableDoubts site:

The three most typical examples: Eusebius is the first author to quote the infamous Testimonium Flavianum (see also Evidence), and he does so without a hint of skepticism (History of the Church, 1.11), and there is strong reason to believe he forged the entire thing (cf. Ken Olson, "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61:2, April 1999, pp. 305-22, which also gives other examples of clear and deliberate distortions of his sources); Eusebius is the only author to quote certain imperial letters that he claims were attached to the Apologies of Justin Martyr, but they are obvious forgeries (ibid., 4.9, 4.12-13) and there is reason to believe that the copies attached to the surviving manuscript of Justin were in fact drawn from Eusebius and possibly even written by him; Eusebius quotes a letter written by Jesus, again with total confidence in its authenticity (ibid. 1.13).

Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.
To understand what Eusebius means, it is important to know how the Platonic dialogue he quotes continues (John Burnet's 1903 translation, 663e-664b):
Athenian: Be it so; yet it proved easy to persuade men of the Sidonian fairy-tale, incredible though it was, and of numberless others. Clinias: What tales? Athenian: The tale of the teeth that were sown, and how armed men sprang out of them. Here, indeed, the lawgiver has a notable example of how one can, if he tries, persuade the souls of the young of anything, so that the only question he has to consider in his inventing is what would do most good to the State, if it were believed; and then he must devise all possible means to ensure that the whole of the community constantly, so long as they live, use exactly the same language, so far as possible, about these matters, alike in their songs, their tales, and their discourses. If you, however, think otherwise, I have no objection to your arguing in the opposite sense. Clinias: Neither of us, I think, could possibly argue against your view.
Plato had already had the Athenian argue that justice is the only real road to happiness, and therefore by this argument people can be persuaded to be good. But he then addresses the possibility that the truth will not suffice, or that justice is not in fact the only real road to happiness, by arguing that lying is acceptable, and even more effective in bringing about what is desired, that the people will be good, and thus the government's teachers should employ lies for the benefit of the state.
Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing. Someone who can accept this as a "good idea" worth both taking credit for and following is not the sort of person to be trusted.

Unfortunately, Eusebius is often our only source for much of the early history of Christian texts, and so I am forced to cite him frequently. Even when I appear to cite him confidently, readers must keep in mind that he is not exceptionally trustworthy.

 

[ceo_esq]

I found this though at ReasonableDoubts site:

However, I'd take those observations with a pinch of salt. The author, Richard Carrier, repeats several assertions about Eusebius that have already been convincingly challenged in other material linked in this thread. He also parrots uncritically the thesis of graduate student Ken Olson that Eusebius forged the entire Testimonium Flavianum, without acknowledging that Olson's position is hardly shared by any professional scholars (and indeed, has received significant criticism from them). This substantially diminishes Carrier's credibility as far as his opinions about Eusebius are concerned.

 

[Vinnie]

Vinnie: Not to mention Mark may have been written just North of Galile, not in Rome.

Triadboy: Mark was too unfamiliar with the geography to have actually lived in the area.

First, this is an error. Maps and the like were not as prominent in the ancient world and reliable maps were probably especially difficult to come by except for selce people (e.g. Roman generals).

Second, even locals can make geography errors in their own regions. Hengel noted this long ago.

Maybe you'd like to cite the specific errors and explain why Mark couldn't be written a little North east of Galilee. Do you even know where that is on a first century map? At best the only relevant error you can come up with is the Tyre//Sidon one or the Geresa one. But the former is explicable in terms of a prolonged Gentile tour and the second we note the second point above and that Mark is north of that region and may have never been there himself.

Edited to add: Ted Weeden, a professional Markan scholar just published an article on X-Talk (shcolarly HJ list) arguing that Mark was written near here. He posted over ten lines of argumentation in support of this.

Xtalk is here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/messages

Vinnie

 

[triadboy]

First, this is an error.

No it isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

No it isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

Wikipedia? Good grief!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Wikipedia? Good grief!

What would have pleased you? The ' Catholic Encyclopedia ' ?

How easy it must be to debate, when you feel free to dismiss a source because the name doesn't ring well with you..

I do know how you feel though.. It really gets tiresome responding to people who insist on using the Judeo/Christian Bible as a source..

 

[Vinnie]

No it isn't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

That article states nothing about any of my comments. You erred with your appeal to Mark's geography errors. They do do not dismiss the location I posited for Mark. I challeneged you to state them and show how they did. You failed to do this.

I stated discussing the geography errors in Mark over here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1498730#post1498730

Feel free to substantiate your assertions.

Vinnie

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

How easy it must be to debate, when you feel free to dismiss a source because the name doesn't ring well with you ...

After addressing Vinnie's point, you might wish to note the following:

Wikipedia is a free content wiki encyclopedia being written collaboratively by contributors from around the world. Anyone can edit every Wikipedia article except for a few protected pages.

- see Wikipedia

The project is helpful and even laudable, but it's clearly not controled, peer-reviewed scholarship. Compare, for example, Wikipedia with Early Christian Writings: Mark.

But, then again, why should I be surprised at your gallant defense of Wikipedia after noting your zealous support of Mr. Humphreys' 'scholarship'?

 

[Gregor]

What's the point of these discussions, guys.

So, ceo cites a conservative Xian scholar who in conjunction with other conservative Xian scholars elects to interpret Mark as pre-70. I could site a dozen scholars who disagree and date it to after 70 CE.

RDoubt doesn't like wickpedi. Fine. Read Helms "Who Wrote the Gospels" or read Mack. Crossan's "Birth of Xianity" is a great (if long) read.

Vinnie, branching out from his infidels home, continues to post his bi-polar brand of neo-Xianity - accepting certain gospel items, rejecting others, and frequently presenting good summaries of existing scholarship and other times championing 'unusual' personal causes (ref: the 'embarrasment' argument).

Have we sufficiently buried the point yet?

 

[Gregor]

And ceo's ad hominems notwithstanding, if you bother to read Olson's arguments, they're pretty thought provoting. If you bother to address the TF issue, rather than making gross generalizations (that I don't believe are supported by the cite reference), the post would be worth reading.

Is there poor scholarship through web-sites.

Absolutely.

Did the "jesusneverexisted" site look a little over the top?

To me - yes.

Are we neophytes really qualified to gauge the quality of true historians' arguments (at least me, who reads no latin, greek, or hebrew?)

Only to a limited degree.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

But, then again, why should I be surprised at your gallant defense of Wikipedia after noting your zealous support of Mr. Humphreys' 'scholarship'?

Your assertion that I defended anything, is as well thought out and as laughable as your dismissal of a presentation merely because it was found at a particular site..

This is known as the fallacy of " attacking the source "..

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Your assertion that I defended anything, is ...

I stand corrected - your enthusiastic "Very Good!!!" served as endorsement, not defense. You've shown neither the willingness nor the ability to defend what you so enthusiastically endorsed. My apologies.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Are we neophytes really qualified to gauge the quality of true historians' arguments (at least me, who reads no latin, greek, or hebrew?)

Only to a limited degree.

I would suggest that at issue was whether or not we partisans are willing and able to guage bad arguments or, conversely, uncritically embrace them solely because they reinforce our prejudices. What do you think?

Speaking of which, would you, as a limitedly qualified neophyte, concur that "IT's common knowledge" that Nazareth didn't exist?

( Parenthetically, I like Wikipedia. )

 

[triadboy]

That article states nothing about any of my comments. You erred with your appeal to Mark's geography errors.

Taken from The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, C. Dennis McKinsey:

Mark 5:1 says, "They came over unto the other side of the sea into the country of the Gadarenes [or Gerasenes]." How could this have occurred since Gadara and Gerasa are miles from the sea? They do not border it.

Mark 7:31 says, "He returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, through the region of the Decapolis" It is difficult to visualize someone going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by passing trhrough Sidon. expecially if he went through the Decapolis en rought. Sidon is to the north of Tyre on the Mediterranean Sea, while the Decapolis is to the south of the Sea of Galilee. It would be like going from St. Louis to Washington DC, while going north through Milwaukee and south through Atlanta.

Mark 8:10 says "He entered into a ship with his disciples and came into parts of Dalmanutha." Many scholars say there is no such place as Dalmanutha.

A factual error by Mark, taken from Asimov's Guide to the Bible:

Mark 2:26 "...he [David] went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread..."

But it was not Abiathar who was high priest at the time this incident took place, but Abiathar's father, Ahemelech.

The area of Tyre and Sidon are thought by Mack to be where Mark was written. But none of this matters within my understanding of how the gospels came about:

-Paul develops Jewish Mystery Religion with Jesus as the dying god-man. Paul initiates some of his flock into the 'inner mysteries'. (Insinuated in Pauls letters) Paul is a big, fat gnostic. (This is the same dying god-man story told in other countries for hundreds of years.)

-20 years later(!), Mark writes his Gospel immediately following the Destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD). The Jews were in desperate straits. The city that god promised would never fall - fell! The Jews felt abandoned by their god. The Jews were waiting for their Messiah - a political warrior leader, who was going to take over the government and rule as David did. Mark, takes the mystery religion story and fixes it in time and place. He proposes that Jesus was the Messiah and lived and died only 40 years prior and that the Kingdom of God will wash the world within the next several decades. Keep hope alive.

- 20 years later(!), Matthew had to correct Marks (omission) mistakes. Mark paid little attention to the OT prophesies about the Messiah. The Messiah HAD to be born in Bethleham. The Messiah HAD to be from royal lineage. Mark only refers to Jesus of Nazereth (he knows nothing of Bethleham) and doesn't force a lineage like Matthew and Luke do. From Marks point of view, Jesus was born a regular man in Nazereth to a poor family. Matthew goes wacky on the OT. Jesus is made to be born in Bethleham. Jesus is made to be born from a virgin. (A Matthew mistake in translation from Isaiah). Matthew embellishes greatly. Herods Slaughter of the Innocents - which never happened - is created. Matthew gets so overzealous ensuring all OT prophesies are represented, he mistakes Hebrew OT double-speak and has Jesus enter Jerusalem on TWO ANIMALS!!

Matthew is writing to address Jewish interests. Luke appears to address gentile concerns.

- 20 years later(!) - John is written which has Jesus in Jerusalem for 3 years!

These gospels were important for their communities, but there were many communities and many Gospels.

Eventually, more than 100 years after the fact(!) - the church fathers begin redacting and reforming the texts to reflect current conditions. (The post-resurrection addition, Mark 16:9-20, was added to prop up the myth)

Now xians look back and see only 4 Gospels and think the authors were all eye-witnesses to the events described. That they differ because of the human condition that allows two car accident witnesses to differ. They differ because they were never meant to be in one book together. They were Gospels for the communities in which they were written.

To understand Campbell's words "Religion is myth misunderstood", one has only to read the Gospels.

 

[Gregor]

[Warning: unqualified opinion, ahead]:

I seem to think that one goes to far to say "it's common knowledge that there was no Nazareth." In fact, my guess is that the best that can be said about the existence of Nazareth is: (i) there seems to be some question about whether some of the NT references to "Nazareth" are mis-translations of "Jesus the Nazorite or Nazorean" and (ii) it is noteworthy that a few Jewish sources from the 1st Century don't mention that a Nazareth existed, when it seems that they should.

I think people should tap the brake a bit when they want to classify everything in the NT as wrong.

Question: is the "Jesusneverexisted" just as overthetop as "tektonics" is for the apologist?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I seem to think that one goes to far to say "it's common knowledge that there was no Nazareth." In fact, my guess is that the best that can be said about the existence of Nazareth is: (i) there seems to be some question about whether some of the NT references to "Nazareth" are mis-translations of "Jesus the Nazorite or Nazorean" and (ii) it is noteworthy that a few Jewish sources from the 1st Century don't mention that a Nazareth existed, when it seems that they should.

I can think of only one instance of likely mistranslation, that being Matthew 2:23. As for the "noteworthy" absence of mention, why should this be at all "noteworthy", especially given the Josephus reference to "Sepphoris, situated in the very midst of Galilee, and having many villages about it"? Novice that I am, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of villages have suffered from a similar lack of mention. At least I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Have you?

I think people should tap the brake a bit when they want to classify everything in the NT as wrong.

I completely agree.

Question: is the "Jesusneverexisted" just as overthetop as "tektonics" is for the apologist?

As an atheist, I take tektonics far more seriously, and view the former as a source of embarrassment, probably much the same way as thoughtful OEC's view their oft times rabid YEC cousins.

 

[triadboy]

I can think of only one instance of likely mistranslation, that being Matthew 2:23. As for the "noteworthy" absence of mention, why should this be at all "noteworthy", especially given the Josephus reference to "Sepphoris, situated in the very midst of Galilee, and having many villages about it"? Novice that I am, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of villages have suffered from a similar lack of mention. At least I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise. Have you?

If I remember right Sepphoris is very close to Nazareth. (Kilometers if I remember, but when you start fartin' dust the memory goes.) Surely - giving the great man who emerged - Nazareth was the better known of the two cities.

But if Josephus is the great revealer of the historic Jesus - as Christians love to claim - why doesn't he mention Nazereth? I agree with Gregor on this - Jesus was a Nazarene - not from Nazereth - Mark bungled it....again.