The theology of Jesus of Nazareth

[outhouse]

The point remains that the earliest source for the tekton image in relation to Jesus is Mark and it is arguably composed to serve a theological function.

That is not substantiated. It is merely biased opinion.


Its function was to describe the man of importance.

And we have Mark claiming he was a tekton, then a later author claims only his dad was a tekton, changing the verse he plagiarized, to mean something other then what the original author did.

And a later author ignoring it completely, not touching the topic with a ten foot pole.

[neilgodfrey]

The point remains that the earliest source for the tekton image in relation to Jesus is Mark and it is arguably composed to serve a theological function.

That is not substantiated. It is merely biased opinion.


Its function was to describe the man of importance.

And we have Mark claiming he was a tekton, then a later author claims only his dad was a tekton, changing the verse he plagiarized, to mean something other then what the original author did.

And a later author ignoring it completely, not touching the topic with a ten foot pole.

You seem to have serious reading comprehension difficulties. Notice I said that a certain view is arguable -- as reading the commentaries and scholarly works on Mark will amply demonstrate. You may disagree with the argument but you should try to argue a case to do so. But you can't deny that there is discussion and debate about the function of the passage -- that a certain view is at least possible to argue and is indeed argued by a number of scholars. You may disagree with the argument but you can't say that the fact that there is an argument -- that is, that there are different views -- about a passage's function is "unsubstantiated opinion".

Or do you mean my statement that Mark is the earliest gospel is unsubstantiated opinion. I don't think many scholars think otherwise.

Its function was to describe the man of importance.

I thought you said that tekton was a term of insult.

Tekton in this period was an insult.

Sorry for introducing a new idea to you. It must be quite disconcerting.

[MrMacSon]

many narratives from antiquity describe leaders as 'builders'; it is a ubiquitous concept ie. a common euphemism

[robert j]

Maybe the author of gMark was drawing on his favorite prophet Isaiah. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but many see significant subtlety in the gospel.

"When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, ‘Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these done by His hands? Is not this the carpenter (τέκτων)… ?” (Mark 6:2-3)

“To whom have you likened the Lord, or with what likeness have you likened him? Has an artisan (τέκτων) made an image, or has a goldsmith, after casting gold, gilded it—prepared a likeness of it? For an artisan (τέκτων) chooses wood that will not rot, then inquires wisely how he should set up his image and so that it will not topple. Will you not know? Will you not hear? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not known the foundations of the earth?” (Isaiah 40:18-21, Septuagint, NETS)

Was the author of gMark referring to Jesus as the tekton that built --- not an image gilded with gold --- but rather an “image” that will never “rot” nor “topple”?

[outhouse]

many narratives from antiquity describe leaders as 'builders'; it is a ubiquitous concept ie. a common euphemism

Yet tekton, is not really a builder specifically. If it was a theological motive, maybe they would have been clear he was a builder. Not some low class handworker often as displaced renters who were often forced off their leased land.


It Is vague as used, and context shows a below peasant class handworker with different possibilities.

It was common to state tekton of wood, or tekton other descriptions.

[outhouse]

You seem to have serious reading comprehension difficulties.

.

You have difficulties dealing with evidence in a credible manner.

[outhouse]

You may disagree with the argument but you should try to argue a case to do so.


.

Why?


You have not provided a credible explanation that tekton was theological in nature, as opposed to a descriptive remark, later authors downplayed. YOU have failed to demonstrate why the later authors changed the perceived theological description.

Your bias stops you from looking at the most obvious explanation.

[cienfuegos]

You may disagree with the argument but you should try to argue a case to do so.


.

Why?


You have not provided a credible explanation that tekton was theological in nature, as opposed to a descriptive remark, later authors downplayed. YOU have failed to demonstrate why the later authors changed the perceived theological description.

Your bias stops you from looking at the most obvious explanation.

outhouse, the problem here is that you are drawing historical inferences from a source that you cannot establish as reliable. At the same time we find that, at every turn, we can find allegorical and theological meaning behind these supposedly historical accounts.

We start at Mark referring to Jesus as a tekton. At this point, what evidence do we have, other than this one claim that Jesus was a tekton? You seem to think that because later authors downplayed this reference that it somehow substantiates Mark's initial claim as a historical fact. It does not though.

That isn't even how the criteria of embarrassment is used in most historical studies. I have given you examples of this before. It should be pointed out that even when someone first hand provides embarrassing information, that does not guarantee the veracity of the alleged facts (for example, false confessions). This is true of biographies or even political speeches like the Iowa GOP rep talking about wearing plastic bread baggies on her feet (FOR THE RECORD, she describes it wrong, so either her memory is flawed or she never really had to do it. I did (in Iowa, no less), you wear the baggies inside the boot to keep your feet dry and to help you slip your foot in and out of the sometimes too small boot).

Clearly this "fact" is revealed to make it appear that this politician is one with the people, something that is unlikely to be true just based on background probability (are most politicians more or less likely to be 'one with the people?") It reminds me of George Bush the First leaning over counter at a farmer's deli in Iowa and asking for a "splash of tea."

Here are some good examples of the criteria of embarrassment:

The Pentagon Papers--internal planning documents revealing realities of the Vietnam War that, shall we say, differed, from the public pronouncements. Do we give more historical weight to the internal planning documents secretly leaked or to the rosy picture painted by the Mouth of Sauron?

Nixon Tapes--ok, well, there must have been something there right? Still, 18 minutes of silence is pretty damning, arguments from silence aside.

The Snowden files--do I need say anything about that?

The Kim Kardashian sex tape--oh, well, that is another example of a revealing embarrassment that was not actually embarrassing. It was apparently true, though, but I wouldn't know...

Your use of the criteria of embarrassment in this case is just simply a misapplication. There is nothing in Mark that Mark didn't want there. Besides that, robertj demonstrated that you are dead wrong to assume that tekton was an insult:

“To whom have you likened the Lord, or with what likeness have you likened him? Has an artisan (τέκτων) made an image, or has a goldsmith, after casting gold, gilded it—prepared a likeness of it? For an artisan (τέκτων) chooses wood that will not rot, then inquires wisely how he should set up his image and so that it will not topple. Will you not know? Will you not hear? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not known the foundations of the earth?” (Isaiah 40:18-21, Septuagint, NETS)

This hardly sounds embarrassing.

[Clive]

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/21-42.htm

[Clive]

So what precisely is the historical Jesus hypothesis based on?