Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8513
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:So you are admitting you are quoting me out of context.
No. That carries connotative baggage that I do not agree with. It's a quote. It's a stupid quote. It's just as stupid in context.
Bernard Muller wrote:Is it the way you are going to treat anyone who disagrees with you, or are you making an exception for me?
Your wording is unfortunate, but your peculiar defense of your (supposedly) nuanced statement (because they are books that contradict each other and are confusing?!...), refusal to admit real fault, and attempt to put the blame on me for quoting your words... doesn't merit sympathy.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3434
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by DCHindley »

Peter & Bernard,

Can we have an intermission so I can buy more popcorn?

:popcorn:
Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Adam »

Your word is our command, DC. We appreciate your learned input....and your good humour.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Peter,
low paid carpenter is as good as any
But according to the kind of evidence we have, what can be totally proven?
only A reconstruction, avoiding non-sense
Jumping on this fallacy--we do not know, therefore we must say that we know (or do some weird polka dance walk of pushing some very particular ideas while simultaneously claiming not to do so whatsoever)--would surely earn many historians a few years in purgatory in a Catholic universe.

The problem? Your statements are intellectually debased. You proceed with ease from only "as good as any" and not "proven" with "the kind of evidence we have" to... fuck it! If I just avoid "non-sense," that's good enough, right? That's the only way to describe this approach. Somewhere in the middle is some kind of step labeled "fuck it!" ("I don't really, truly care about being rational anymore, in this subject") and then stuff that wouldn't pass muster (rationally) starts flying everywhere.
Maybe I used the wrong words, such as "as good as any", about Jesus, or Joseph, or both being carpenter, but I do not see (if Jesus had been human from human parents) accepting, as probable, "carpenter" as the profession of Jesus, or Joseph, or both (because it is in gMark & gMatthew), is non-sense. After all "Mark" & "Matthew" did not used "carpenter in order to make some theological/christological points. And "carpenter" was certainly a common
occupation for landless peasant.
So I am supposed to believe that Jesus' father was a carpenter... why, exactly? Why is it oh so very probable?

Mt13:55

Mk6:3 [?]

Trypho LXXXVIII

Okay. So a few quotes. Great.

Just the first thing I saw to comment on in the first link I clicked. And by far the most common form of 'demonstrated to be probable' argument on the site.
Not very probable, just probable (as long as the humanity of Jesus on earth is accepted).
I do not think I used Justin Martyr as a reliable witness for "carpenter", but just, in Justin's view, "carpenter" does not mean "master builder".
My website is generally not about "demonstrating what is probable", but removing (with evidence to do so), many items added to the earthly Jesus and, yes, defending (with evidence also) the little that is left.
What is left is here: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html (A brief & comprehensive account on how Christianity started through a sequence of events involving Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus & others)
Notice I did not mention "carpenter" in it.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
robert j
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by robert j »

Bernard Muller wrote:After all "Mark" ... did not use carpenter in order to make some theological/christological points.
I'm not so sure about that. robert j wrote in another thread ---
robert j wrote:Maybe the author of gMark was drawing on his favorite prophet Isaiah. ... 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 an “image” that will never “rot” nor “topple”?
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by outhouse »

Bernard Muller wrote: . And "carpenter" was certainly a common
occupation for landless peasant.

Not really.


All the credible translations in context are that we are talking about handworkers doing odd jobs living a life below the typical peasant.


A carpenter might be labeled "tekton of wood" It is more likely he would be a stone worker then that of wood, and that isn't even known, other then a lack of wood in Nazareth and plenty of field stones
Last edited by outhouse on Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by outhouse »

1.2.4 Joseph's occupation and social status:
His father was a carpenter, according to Mt13:55. The Greek word for 'carpenter' is 'tekton' and can have three different main meanings, according to Strong:
- A worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder
- Any craftsman, or workman
- A planner, contriver, plotter
Justin Martyr, a 2nd century Christian, wrote:
Trypho LXXXVIII "And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; ... making ploughs and yokes ...)"
Could Joseph have been a well-off master builder?
That would be denied by him & his family living in a small hilly village, and not in the nearby city of Sepphoris or even, less than two miles down the road, the walled town of Japha (mentioned in Josephus' Life, 45 & Wars, III, VII, 31).
"Luke" must have known Joseph & Mary were poor. In Lk2:24, the normal offering, a lamb, is not mentioned, just "a pair of doves or two young pigeons", according to:
Lev12:8 "... If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons ..."

"Next came the Artisans, about 5 percent of the population [in the Roman empire], below the Peasants in social class because they were usually recruited and replenished from its dispossessed members.
Beneath them were the Degraded and Expendable classes - the former with origins, occupations, or conditions rendering them outcasts; the latter, maybe as much as 10 percent of the population, ranging from beggars and outlaws to hustlers, day laborers, and slaves.
If Jesus was a carpenter [according to Mk6:3], therefore, he belonged to the Artisan class, that group pushed into the dangerous space between Peasants and Degradeds or Expendables."
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994)
Agree with Peter here.

This is outdated crap. Its now a worthless piece, less someone who knowns nothing on the topic is looking for an old opinion to see how scholars have changed views with more recent study. Crossan has altered his views since then, with Johnathon Reeds work.


First the quotes are coming from scholars that assume their position and definition is correct, when the socioeconomic studies are NOT settled and debated heavily.


Its most plausible that these were very poor people that populated Nazareth with others that amounted to a work camp for rebuilding Sepphoris. They would have lived on a subsistence basis. This is based on the village not being large or even known, and satellite agrarian villages and labor forces should have popped up exactly during this period. By biblical passages describing the population ibn a negative light, it reminds me of a hobo shanty.

The fact is, with the unknown authors being so far removed from any event, by time and distance, no scholars should place any certainty beyond archeology and anthropology. And that is what I'm trying to follow.



As scholars have recently noted, the word usually translated “carpenter” (tekton) can also mean someone who worked with his hands, or a stone worker. As Joseph may have done stonework and manual labor rather than being a craftsman with wood, this would have put him in the lowest of the lower class. Therefore, the family Jesus grew up in would not have owned land, but they would have been subsistence farmers accustomed to menial labor. According to Stephen Patterson, the family of Jesus was a step below the normal peasant. This being the case, neither Joseph nor Jesus was a carpenter; they were more likely workers with stone and general manual labor.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Michael BG »

I must admit I had not given any thought to the historicity of the occupation of Jesus or Joseph. I believe that Mark is the older and Matthew used Mark. It seems that Matthew has changed Jesus from being the tekton to being the son of the tekton. Luke has expanded the story with Jesus reading from Isaiah (4:16-30). It therefore seems reasonable to think that Christians were linking Isaiah and Jesus. Mark has Jesus not able to do any mighty works, while Matthew has edited it to he didn’t do many might works and Luke omits any reference to not being able to do mighty works. I am not aware of Isaiah having this problem so there is no parallel there. The idea that this whole section was created out of Isaiah I think is weak and the idea that Jesus was made into a tekton because of Isaiah 40:18-21 I also think is weak.

I have yet to be persuaded that there is a theological reason why early Christians would make Jesus into a tekton. However it is clear that both Matthew and Luke were not happy with calling Jesus a tekton and so didn’t do so, and nor does John. Therefore it is possible that Jesus was a tekton before he started his mission.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Michael BG wrote:I have yet to be persuaded that there is a theological reason why early Christians would make Jesus into a tekton.
What do you think of Géza Vermès' suggestion that Jesus was called a carpenter because of an old Jewish turn of phrase?

Now those familiar with the language spoken by Jesus are acquainted with a metaphorical use of 'carpenter' and 'carpenter's son' in ancient Jewish writings. In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for a 'scholar' or 'learned man'.

"This is something that no carpenter, son of carpenters, can explain."

"There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter's son, to explain it."

This usage fits right in with the context: Jesus is speaking in a synagogue.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Markan priority: an "assured result of modern criticism"

Post by outhouse »

Ben C. Smith wrote:

What do you think of Géza Vermès' suggestion that Jesus was called a carpenter because of an old Jewish turn of phrase?

Ben.
A few problems.

We have Koine authors describing to there best effort they can, and we see no transliterations here.

Next, we also have supposedly mark being first, and the next two authors trying to minimalize the damage of using tekton. Now maybe M and L thought displaced handworker when mark meant something else, but I doubt it.


Its not the most probable suggestion.

Jesus is speaking in a synagogue.
We cannot even find a synagogue in Sepphoris, it is unlikely there was ever one in Nazareth.

And if we follow that Jesus was Johns student, its also likely they mainly operated outdoors, and then teaching in public squares and around the dinner table in private houses as "generally speaking"
Post Reply