What counts as a historical Jesus?

[grahbudd]

Maybe, but then essentially he's on his own all that time. The whole reason I brought that up was basically because I don't see them really having any authority over him. He can make up any BS, no matter how conflicting it is with their version.



Hmm? I'm not getting the impression in either Paul's epistle, nor in Acts that anyone summoned him, or indeed that anyone could just summon him.

In fact, IF you believe Acts, and that's admittedly a huge IF, he does a whole tour of half the Mediterranean between when he last was in Corinth (the generally assumed place where he wrote the epistle to the Romans) and when he finally gets to Jerusalem.

In fact we see him going to Ephesus, in Turkey, where he dicks around long enough to cause a whole commotion (see pretty much the whole Acts 19) then he goes BACK to Macedonia (Acts 20), then to Greece, and then finally he can be arsed to go to Jerusalem. And really, even saying that doesn't to it justice. His way from Ephesus to Macedonia sees him going first to Philippi, waay to the west on the other side of the isthmus, then back to Troas on the Turkey side again, then for some weird reason NORTH-WEST to Assos, then instead of going south-east, he actually goes NORTH-EAST to Kios, before finally getting in a sane direction through Samos and Miletus.

If you look at a map for those cities, the guy is all over the frikken map. He seems to be in no real hurry to report to Jerusalem or anything.

In fact, he pulls such a... weirdly stupid stuff as bypassing Ephesus on the way to Miletus, supposedly because he's in a hurry to get to Jerusalem, but then he has time to send someone back to Ephesus to tell the church elders there to come to him in Miletus and wait for them.

I mean, if you think about it, compare these two possibilities, from the time he was passing by Ephesus:

A) stop in Ephesus for how long he needs to talk to those elders, then go X miles to Miletus, vs

B) go X miles to Miletus, send someone X miles back to Ephesus to call those church leaders, add some more delay as those probably didn't have a boat ready to leave within the hour, then those go X miles from Ephesus to Miletus to meet him.

B is three times the journey, fer fork's sake. Far from being something you'd do when you're in a hurry, it's a way to wast at least 3 times as much time.

Plus there are all those intervals in days he stops in each point. It's five days here, seven days there, and so on. This guy spent months dicking around the map, according to Acts.

Seriously doesn't sound to me like someone they can just summon to report. Ask to come, maybe. But he's definitely taking his time, and is coming when he wants to come. It doesn't sound like they actually have any authority over him.



Well, Acts is basically a lie anyway. It's written as if it were first person by someone travelling with Paul and seeing this all first hand. But we know that whoever Luke was, he's not actually an eyewitness. He makes a hash of cities which supposedly was with Paul and saw first hand, and I don't mean like getting it wrong whether first street is north or south of second street, but he invents stuff that archaeologists are pretty sure wasn't there. And other events we're pretty sure he didn't really know even from Paul, because he's getting them from Josephus and getting them wrong, or is copying them from Mark who wasn't an eyewitness, and so on.

So, really, whoever wrote Acts was a forger and a liar, same as most early Christian proselytizers seem to have been. He's writing his own BS story, but pretends to be someone else, to give it more weight.

It's the same as if, dunno, instead of just inventing some BS quote where Jefferson endorses prayer in schools, someone were to write some memoirs of Alexander Hamilton in which he testifies hearing Jefferson say that.

And, really, the early Christians did that lots. When they weren't ascribing their fanfic directly to some apostle, they were inventing guys like Peter's personal secretary, or Paul's personal physician and companion, or whatever. Or promote some nobody who was a minor rabid zealot to some early church father to write rules in his name.

But anyway, ok, so Luke is lying about who he is and how he knows that, but the only question is how well did Luke research that stuff anyway. Turns out that not so good either. Well, to be fair, he's head and shoulders above Mark in that aspect, as he seems to have at least tried to figure out the geography, customs and history of the place, and he IS using Josephus extensively. Plus he seems to have had SOMETHING resembling court transcripts at some point, which, you know, is one more source he's using. So the guy at least tried.

Does that extend to the events too, though, or only the setting? I mean, Josephus certainly didn't write about Paul's roundabout trip from Corinth to Jerusalem, so does Luke have any reliable information about that? Probably not, I'd say, judging by how that stuff resembles pious fiction more than any historical stuff. (Actual historical stuff tends to be lighter on miracles and prophecies)

So, yeah, if you ask me, Acts is a novel, and Paul is either a liar or a schizophrenic or both, so that kinda leaves us with a big question mark as to WTH really happened there. At any rate, I have no problem with disbelieving them both.

The problem then though is that that's not an excuse to just fill in the gaps with one's own fairy tale, and pull identifications out of the ass. One can't just invent what really happened in one place, if there is no corroboration to be found in those documents. If source 1 says X, and source 2 says Y, that's not an excuse to postulate just knowing that it was actually Z. That's just pulling stuff out of the ass. If source 1 is probably a propaganda lie, and source 2 doesn't actually say anything matching anyway, one can't just invent a match.

Im afraid that to my mind this is essentially advocacy and not critical analysis. It simply assumes all the things that it needs in order to then trash the sources.

For example, what's to say that the "We" passages of Luke don't actually incorporate real eye-witness evidence? (please don't try the "that's how sea voyages were described then" defense either ).

What really are all these appalling short-comings of Acts?

Let me finish with a quote from Schürer: "Either St Luke had not read Josephus, or, if he had read him, he had forgotten what he read".

To claim without evidence that it's obvious somehow that Acts draws extensively on Josephus is just advocacy once more. It's simply wildly tendentious to say so.

 

[maximara]

It seems to me you are letting your judgment being overtly swayed by your anti-christian sentiments! At the very least, no-one could claim that SM is well evidenced, and there is of course all sorts of circumstantial evidence to suggest that Morton Smith forged it (it would certainly have been within his capacities to do so).

So the theory you have is that Morton Smith forged and then left it behind where he had no control over it?!? HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY BLOODY SENSE?!?

The whole reason the Piltdown Man hoax lasted as long as that is what the experts were expecting to find. Morton Smith's discovery ran contrary to all belief in Mark at the time so controlling access would have been key...so he leaves it where anybody can examine it at their leisure?!? I thought the efforts to make Luke and Matthew agree with the birth stories were humdingers but this is a close second in terms of logic and common sense.

"The truth is that at least three other scholars and two members of the Greek Patiarchate handled the Manuscript." (Brown, Scott G. (2005). Mark’s Other Gospel. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. pp. 25)

The fact is we KNOW where the manuscript was in 1977: the Patriarchate library. And that is where the trail ends... right on the Christians' front doorstep.

How and more importantly why did they lose it?
More over how does any modern library "lose" something like that?

Cui bono.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Just look at Star Trek fandom and how extremely aggressive they are about their own wild speculations based on a fictional universe, just in order to ignore the obvious contradictions. Remind you of anything ?

And I'm a Trekkie, too. But I can tell when something just doesn't fit. The best thing to do in those instances is to remove or modify one of the two instances so the contradiction dissapears in your own fan-fiction. If Christians stopped taking the bible litterally, that would be far easier to do.

Well, basically, yes, except it's not even just about resolving contradictions. Augustine for example runs into dada land with stuff like whether witchcraft can cause permanent changes or just temporary, and so on, that there was no contradiction about. In fact there was nothing either Jesus or the OT ever said about that. But Augustine still writes a whole tome about such crap, apparently just based on that if it makes sense to him, it must be true.

Those guys aren't just solving canon contradictions. They're making up new pieces of canon, where there was nothing to solve with it, except maybe their own cognitive dissonance.

But yeah, generally a lot of Cristians were what's called fan dumb. Not just fandom, but fan dumb. Down to the detail of them being so special that they can redefine canon. No, literally, their being able to say what the OT or even NT REALLY means, because the holy spirit guides them, is exactly a fan dumb rationalization.

I never understood the appeal of Heaven, myself. Sounds boring and oppressive to me.

Well, for most people it beats being dead

I mean, think of it this way: if you were shipwrecked at sea, would you let yourself be rescued by a North Korean ship, or prefer to be left there to die? Pretty much that's what the heaven choice is all about. A lot of people would rather be taken to brown-nose an insecure narcisistic sociopath for all eternity, than be dead.

Of course, the fly in the ointment still is that imagining it doesn't actually make it true. Just imagining a ship that will save you, doesn't actually get you out of the ocean.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Im afraid that to my mind this is essentially advocacy and not critical analysis. It simply assumes all the things that it needs in order to then trash the sources.

For example, what's to say that the "We" passages of Luke don't actually incorporate real eye-witness evidence? (please don't try the "that's how sea voyages were described then" defense either ).

What really are all these appalling short-comings of Acts?

Let me finish with a quote from Schürer: "Either St Luke had not read Josephus, or, if he had read him, he had forgotten what he read".

To claim without evidence that it's obvious somehow that Acts draws extensively on Josephus is just advocacy once more. It's simply wildly tendentious to say so.

First of all, I didn't say it doesn't contain witness accounts, I said HE isn't one, because he makes a hash of places he supposedly went with Paul to. See for example here what a hash he makes of Corinth: http://jesusneverexisted.com/corinth1.html

And it's kinda fundamental stuff, not some detail on a hill outside town. If he actually accompanied Paul or was talking to first hand witnesses, it's kinda hard to get stuff happening at a synagogue that didn't frikken exist there yet.

Also, he claims Paul did actual miracles, and if he's actually a companion of Paul and was there as opposed to writing hearsay, then he's a liar or delusional. Plain and simple. Which still gets us to square one: there's no reason to take anything from him seriously.

ETA: I mean, if he were just collecting stories, ok, he'd be just uncritical, but there'd be no reason to doubt his personal integrity. But we have someone who essentially pretends to be a first hand witness, to something that included a bunch of miracles and to some places that looked nothing like how he described them. He can't possibly be that.

 

[pakeha]

Please do not imagine for one minute that I approve of this sort of ghastly show!

Nevertheless, there have of course been individuals who have worked as healers within communities for thousands of years. Why would you regard them as frauds? Their understanding of medicine was of course limited (no doubt traditional herbs etc could be and were used); they may have had a shrewd understanding of psychology, and may well have been outstanding individuals in caring for members of their communities. Why not?

Sorry about the disgusting nature of that vid.
I thought it necessary to show just how far faith healers are willing to go to validate what they do.

The miraculous healings of Jesus as reported in the NT are faith healings, are they not? We know faith healing is fraudulent and I don't have any scruples in calling 'fraud' to those NT stories.

I think the subject of primitive healing (herbal lore, etc) is interesting of course, but what relevance does it have to the NT's miraculous healings?

...And it is this political distaste that is making people automatically feel horror and repulsion towards people in the past who may - as far as anyone knows! - just have been trying to be nice to people. it does happen!

Of course it does. But faith healers claiming miracles are another kettle of fish, don't you think?

 

[grahbudd]

First of all, I didn't say it doesn't contain witness accounts, I said HE isn't one, because he makes a hash of places he supposedly went with Paul to. See for example here what a hash he makes of Corinth: http://jesusneverexisted.com/corinth1.html

And it's kinda fundamental stuff, not some detail on a hill outside town. If he actually accompanied Paul or was talking to first hand witnesses, it's kinda hard to get stuff happening at a synagogue that didn't frikken exist there yet.

Also, he claims Paul did actual miracles, and if he's actually a companion of Paul and was there as opposed to writing hearsay, then he's a liar or delusional. Plain and simple. Which still gets us to square one: there's no reason to take anything from him seriously.

ETA: I mean, if he were just collecting stories, ok, he'd be just uncritical, but there'd be no reason to doubt his personal integrity. But we have someone who essentially pretends to be a first hand witness, to something that included a bunch of miracles and to some places that looked nothing like how he described them. He can't possibly be that.

Once more, I find this, in the strict sense, unanalytical.

Of course both the content, aims and sources of Acts vary. For example, for a long time the first 12 chapters have been seen as something differently sourced from the rest. It's clear at the very least that Luke did not have many good sources about the later church Jerusalem (which is hardly surprising).

On Corinth: the page you link to is another example of advocacy. It wants to show that Paul never went to Corinth, etc etc, and thus presents a set of (rather circumstantial) evidence to show that he didn't. Even by its most most fervent admirer, it could hardly be said to be an objective overview - it just simply presents stuff that the author wants us to believe to be true.

To analyse the work for a moment, what is wrong with saying the following?:

i) the author (i.e. Luke) wants to present the origin of christianity in the gentiles, and this is thus obviously a spun tale. Acts makes no attempt at impartiality, and (indeed) when placed next to Paul's letters, which it often or sometimes contradicts or at least places different emphases on, allows us to see that the work was not written from the perspective of *Paul* at least. But that doesn't rule out an associate of paul, of course.

ii) The five "we" passages may well respond to a fellow-traveller's voyage.Why not? The whole thing is rather subtle to say the least.

iii) But that doesn't mean the author was kicking around with Paul the whole time - indeed, quite the contrary. his sources for the rest were bound to be more sketchy.

iv) The lack of reference to, or correspondence with Paul's letters, makes it highly unlikely that Acts was produced after the Pauline letters started being in general circulation. This means that contrary to all the "it was written to annoy Marcion" stuff, it was written before or around 100AD.

 

[grahbudd]

Sorry about the disgusting nature of that vid.
I thought it necessary to show just how far faith healers are willing to go to validate what they do.

The miraculous healings of Jesus as reported in the NT are faith healings, are they not? We know faith healing is fraudulent and I don't have any scruples in calling 'fraud' to those NT stories.

I think the subject of primitive healing (herbal lore, etc) is interesting of course, but what relevance does it have to the NT's miraculous healings?


Of course it does. But faith healers claiming miracles are another kettle of fish, don't you think?

What I am essentially claiming is that the healing of Jesus, just like the healings of a modern therapist, are of a psychological nature, which of course also makes sense in light of his message. If that is the case, why would you see that as being fraudulent? My friend with psychogenic blindness got psychological treatment and then got better. Why would that be fraudulent? Indeed, one criticism often leveled at modern medicine (with, I think, at least some justification) is that it tends to ignore the super important psychological components of illness, which is why things like psychotherapy treatment for pain management are now becoming more important.

 

[pakeha]

What I am essentially claiming is that the healing of Jesus, just like the healings of a modern therapist, are of a psychological nature, which of course also makes sense in light of his message. If that is the case, why would you see that as being fraudulent? My friend with psychogenic blindness got psychological treatment and then got better. Why would that be fraudulent? ...

Full marks to your friend for accepting psychological treatment.

But back on topic.
Which of the miraculous healing of the NT shows any sign of being a psychological treatment rather than faith healing?

What would you think of a practitioner of psychology who claims their treatment is miraculous or proof of divine intercession?

 

[grahbudd]

Full marks to your friend for accepting psychological treatment.

But back on topic.
Which of the miraculous healing of the NT shows any sign of being a psychological treatment rather than faith healing?

What would you think of a practitioner of psychology who claims their treatment is miraculous or proof of divine intercession?

What about such a practitioner in the first century? Why would they or anyone else think any differently?

 

[grahbudd]

I mean even if someone today thought that they had a God given gift to heal people's psychological problems, and yet they were good at it, I am not sure why we would think they were fraudulent. One might think they were *misguided*, but that's surely a different thing.

I've laid out reasons for thinking that the healings in especially Mark are of this sort.

The contrast with later writers such as Matthew and Luke is instructive. These writers start to introduce heightenings of the events into things that are truly inexplicable, such as ears being glued back on and so on. Clearly the communities the evangelists were writing for had no problem *per se* with such stuff. Nevertheless, it is thus striking that in Mark one simply doesn't see this sort of heightening. Despite the possibilities shown by Luke and Matthew (and even more by John), Mark's healings all fall into the category of "when you think about it, this falls into the category of a folk healing". Once again, one thus sees a sense of *restraint*. Mark wants to display Jesus as the Son of God. He wants to show God's power acting through him. We know his audiences accepted the truly miraculous as possible accounts of Jesus. Indeed, he himself adds some remarkable events (the nature miracles) that I have not as yet discussed. And yet, his healings are only sometimes successful, they all look (potentially) like psychogenic problems, and he sometimes uses the methods of traditional folk healers to achieve his aims (the use of saliva is particularly significant).

Conclusion: this is, at least broadly, an account of a real healer, restrained by history.

 

[Belz...]

What I am essentially claiming is that the healing of Jesus, just like the healings of a modern therapist, are of a psychological nature

Which is something you are making up, and that's weird coming from a Christian. Jesus The Mundane !

 

[grahbudd]

Which is something you are making up, and that's weird coming from a Christian. Jesus The Mundane !

Again, I would argue that I'm not making it up of course :-D

I would hope that the way *anyone* looked at the data at hand would not be swayed by their own personal philosophy or outlook on life!

 

[pakeha]

What about such a practitioner in the first century? Why would they or anyone else think any differently?

Are you saying psychology = faith healing?

I mean even if someone today thought that they had a God given gift to heal people's psychological problems, and yet they were good at it, I am not sure why we would think they were fraudulent. One might think they were *misguided*, but that's surely a different thing.

They would definitely be fraudulent, grahbudd, because this is now faith healing, not psychological treatment.
Selling faith healing as psychological treatment is an obvious fraud, don't you think?

Also, I think we must consider that these miraculous healings as related in the NT were used by Mark to sell the Good News, not as a breakthrough in psychological treatment.

...Mark's healings all fall into the category of "when you think about it, this falls into the category of a folk healing". Once again, one thus sees a sense of *restraint*. Mark wants to display Jesus as the Son of God. He wants to show God's power acting through him. ...
Conclusion: this is, at least broadly, an account of a real healer, restrained by history.

A real healer?

I could only find two healings in Mark which are not echoed in the other Gospels, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

10:46-52
7:31-37

As far as I can see, Mark's healings fall into the faith healing category and I'm not sure why you conclude they are 'restrained' or psychological in nature.
After all, both are the sort of faith healing you can find on Youtube by the dozen.

 

[grahbudd]

Are you saying psychology = faith healing?




They would definitely be fraudulent, grahbudd, because this is now faith healing, not psychological treatment.
Selling faith healing as psychological treatment is an obvious fraud, don't you think?

Also, I think we must consider that these miraculous healings as related in the NT were used by Mark to sell the Good News, not as a breakthrough in psychological treatment.



A real healer?

I could only find two healings in Mark which are not echoed in the other Gospels, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

10:46-52
7:31-37

As far as I can see, Mark's healings fall into the faith healing category and I'm not sure why you conclude they are 'restrained' or psychological in nature.
After all, both are the sort of faith healing you can find on Youtube by the dozen.

Hmmmmm.

OK, first off, do you think there's a distinction between a "folk" healer, and a "faith" healer?

Second, you are perfectly correct, there are only two healings in Mark that are not also in Luke and/or Matthew. What is important here is the way they are dealt with. Sometimes they are carried through without change.

Example:

Mark:

3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

This idea of digging through the roof is consonant with what is known with building styles in the region, wooden supports with branches and mud etc splattered over the top.

Luke's version:

17 One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick. 18 Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19 When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.

20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
21 The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 24 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. 26 Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.”

In this instance, Luke has essentially carried over the story without change, except for the intriguing one of changing this idea of digging through the roof (which his urban audience would not have been familiar with) with moving the tiles out of the way.

 

[grahbudd]

Are you saying psychology = faith healing?




They would definitely be fraudulent, grahbudd, because this is now faith healing, not psychological treatment.
Selling faith healing as psychological treatment is an obvious fraud, don't you think?

Also, I think we must consider that these miraculous healings as related in the NT were used by Mark to sell the Good News, not as a breakthrough in psychological treatment.



A real healer?

I could only find two healings in Mark which are not echoed in the other Gospels, correct me if I'm wrong, please.

10:46-52
7:31-37

As far as I can see, Mark's healings fall into the faith healing category and I'm not sure why you conclude they are 'restrained' or psychological in nature.
After all, both are the sort of faith healing you can find on Youtube by the dozen.

Aren't faith healing on Youtube all about hernias, varicose veins, incurable cancers etc?

I don't know, have never looked and certainly don't intend to start now. Although I agree it does seem somewhat galling for God to spend his time doing minor cosmetic surgery for wealthy americans while the rest of the world etc etc...

 

[IanS]

Your view of when the Christian canon was created is later than generally accepted dates I believe. Perhaps you are referring to final decisions or some such, the canon was not an issue for the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and it seems like if it wasn't fairly well settled by then it would have been at least some kind of issue at the council. I notice that the Wikipedia article on the development of the Christian canon says that Irenaeus asserts that a four Gospel canon exists in 180 CE. It seems likely to me that the date that some kind of canon is established is well before the fourth century. Marcion is credited with the first cut at a canon and the Early Christian Writings puts that in the 130 CE to 140 CE time frame. It seems like there's a pretty good chance that the church developed their own canon not long after that for the NT but the idea that it roughly existed by 180 CE looks like a good bet to me.

Oh yes, certainly there may have been general agreement about a cannon of those four texts from around the dates you suggest.

I just wrote "4th century" as the earliest for which it seems we can actually know the detailed contents for most of the biblical writing.

IOW - whilst there may have been an agreed cannon of certain gospels long before the 4th century, afaik we don't actually know what most of it said at that earlier date.

Nor do I know when the names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were first associated with those four gospels?

 

[IanS]

What I am essentially claiming is that the healing of Jesus, just like the healings of a modern therapist, are of a psychological nature, which of course also makes sense in light of his message. If that is the case, why would you see that as being fraudulent? My friend with psychogenic blindness got psychological treatment and then got better. Why would that be fraudulent? Indeed, one criticism often leveled at modern medicine (with, I think, at least some justification) is that it tends to ignore the super important psychological components of illness, which is why things like psychotherapy treatment for pain management are now becoming more important.

The healing is only one part of the Jesus miracles, isn't it?

What about walking on water? How is that not supposed to be a miracle? Are you going to say it must have been an illusion?

What about rising from the dead and ascending through the clouds into heaven in full view of 500 people? Are you going to say that must have been a case of mass hallucination?

What about the raising of Lazarus? He had been dead for 4 days, hadn't he?

 

[grahbudd]

Oh yes, certainly there may have been general agreement about a cannon of those four texts from around the dates you suggest.

I just wrote "4th century" as the earliest for which it seems we can actually know the detailed contents for most of the biblical writing.

IOW - whilst there may have been an agreed cannon of certain gospels long before the 4th century, afaik we don't actually know what most of it said at that earlier date.

Nor do I know when the names Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were first associated with those four gospels?

IanS: Irenaeus was the first preserved writer (eh, not him, his texts ) to list out these names. However, there's also the Muratorian Fragment the writing which is traditionally dated to around 170 from internal clues. If so its the first known comprehensive list.

Papias, whose dating is also uncertain but probably comes from the first third of the second century, is cited by people like Eusebius, and may be a source for Irenaeus. There is evidence from the fragmentary information preserved that he too knew and discussed all for canonical gospels. He certainly mentioned mark and Matthew by name: what he says about them, however, has been delightfully and endlessly controversial

 

[grahbudd]

The healing is only one part of the Jesus miracles, isn't it?

What about walking on water? How is that not supposed to be a miracle? Are you going to say it must have been an illusion?

What about rising from the dead and ascending through the clouds into heaven in full view of 500 people? Are you going to say that must have been a case of mass hallucination?

What about the raising of Lazarus? He had been dead for 4 days, hadn't he?

As I said before, the miracles of John are of a different type to those of the earlier mark. In the raising of Lazarus the miraculous nature is heightened deliberately. However, for various reasons, most people do not take John as a serious source for the life of Jesus, even if it contains some very interesting snippets indeed.

Similarly, mark has no ascension. That's not to say there's no basis for this, but I simply think it is hard to discuss usefully from a historical perspective.

The nature miracles in Mark (feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand, cursing of the figtree, walking on water, stilling of the storm and transfiguration) are another matter. These are certainly highly miraculous in nature, and if there is real history behind them is now, I think, impossible to say. However, what is notable about them is their utterly clear references to the OT. The role they play in mark is, I think, to display mark's christology (which is in these instances surprisingly high). It might even be the case that mark thought of these pericopes as symbolic, midrashic-like commentary.

No time to discuss now!!

 

[grahbudd]

One might compare Matthew's addition to the passion story that he presumably inherited from mark. These include things like the resurrection of the saints at the crucifixion, the miraculous swooning of the guards around the tomb, etc. these all lok like clearly secondary additions.