How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

[outhouse]

Non sequitur.

Again demonstrating yourself as an idiotes. This is not a 'non sequitur' (= Latin for 'it does not follow') because it does indeed follow from the point before. Again, you're so fucking stupid.

non se·qui·tur.


[ˌnän ˈsekwitər]






NOUN



1.a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

[TedM]

If you want to continue the discussion, Stephan, my question is simply this: What specific parts do you object to, and why? Surely you would agree that any lay person could discuss a scripture. So that part should be ok. You seem to think Jesus could not have read scripture, and that lay people, nay not even his own followers, would have been interested in his opinion on the scriptures. Perhaps too that authorities would not have been interested in discussing a scripture with him. Is that it, or is there more to it? I prefer taking a passage and discussing it part by part. You put up a passage and then spoke in generalities mostly. If I've overlooked answers, not just opinions, forgive me, but I can't proceed without a more structured approach from you.

[Adam]

Having read the first two unproductive pages of this thread, I turn our attention back to presuppositions of the OP. Our Secret friend chose to quote without attribution the Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 19, but the more complete version at Mark 10 would seem more appropriate as the longer more original version further authenticated by the usual presumption (which I don't personally accept) that Mark was used by Matthew (they actually used a common source).
Since I got started inserted the verses/words I took incorrectly that Secret had omitted, here we go, using the same New International Version he employed, but from Mark (yet leaving Matthean wording Stephan already has the same phrase--with brackets denoted my insertions and ellises my deletions where Mt by usual scholarly standards added to Mark:

The obvious starting point is ANY discussion of the Pentateuch which obviously puts Jesus as the spokesperson for the mind of the author of the gospel (= Paul, Mark, take your pick of names):

[Mark] 10:2] Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife {for any and every reason?}”
[3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."]
{4} [6]“Haven’t you read,” he replied, [6]“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ {5} [7]and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? {6} So they are no longer two, but one {flesh}. [9]Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
[10] When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.]
{7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”}

{8 Jesus replied, “{Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.} {9 } I tell you that [11] anyone who divorces his wife,{ except for sexual immorality}, and marries another woman commits adultery [against her].”[12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."]
{10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”}

........
Skipping his commentary following, more important is to recognize that Higher Criticism affirms the superiority of what can be multiply attested. Yes, skeptics of Lower Criticism attack textual development during the initial centuries of Christianity, but it would take an extreme I'm unaware of to reject a text stated equivalently in more or more gospels. Best attestation in practice is verses in Luke that are also in Mark or Matthew. In this OP we have both Mark and Matthew, which to me is excellent wherever they agree, because here as in most of these first two gospels they are based on a common source, whether the Proto-Gospel, Proto-Matthew, or some other hypothetical text at a particular stage of development (being my hypothesis). OK, clearly above we have some solid stuff by my analysis. We even know from the Gospel of John (quadruple attestation) that Jesus argued with the Pharisees, the first verse above. We don't know if the next verse was primitive, as it does not appear in Matthew and is not included by Stephan--maybe the Evangelist just didn't want to give the enemy equal time? In both we find Jesus's rationale. Does anyone really question that Jesus was a rather clever fellow? That's the whole raison d'etre of the Jesus Seminar, to prove that Jesus was their precursor as the wise-cracking Cynic philosopher. Sure, lots of scholars in contrast don't like Jesus, but putting him done as a megalomaniac or manic-depressive does not lessen the probability that he stood his ground against the authorities and maybe backed them into corners. That's a 21st Century Forensic Psychiatry lesson for the less informed here. So Matthew 19:4-6 stands tall. I would likewise argue that Mt. 19:7 captures the original better than the generic Mark 10:10. Matthew 19:9 equals Mark 10:11, so Jesus really did forbid divorce against rabbinic leniency (toward men!). Notice that Mt. 19:9 is NOT followed by Mark 10:12 that grants equal rights (wrongs, in this case) to women. Perhaps Matthew suppressed this verse because it was irrelevant as Jewish law (in contrast to Roman law) did not permit women to divorce their husbands (or could not conceive that a woman would, as she would be sentencing herself to poverty or prostitution?).
All told, whatever stands agreed above really does go back to Jesus, as does much of the material Matthew or Mark omitted for whatever reason.

[Adam]

The "Full Editor" did not allow me to edit some minor grammatical problems with verb ending. Also change "the first two unproductive pages" to "the first THREE unproductive pages", as the third seems to focus on a word also starting with "t" that rhymes with it ("third").
EDITED TO ADD:
For "three" and "third" above substitute "four" and "fourth"
BUT:
The fourth I admit shows more promise of getting somewhere.

[Secret Alias]

If you want to continue the discussion, Stephan, my question is simply this: What specific parts do you object to, and why?

I don't 'object' to any part of the gospel. I think most of us - who don't take rabid inerrant vs mythicist position - presume that at least some of the gospel is made up. When I encounter citations of scripture in Patristic texts - the Dialogue of Adamantius for instance - especially when it's passage after passage being cited, I generally suspect this is at least 'artificial' if not made up. People speaking generally don't get into line by line citations of scriptures, especially idiotes.

Surely you would agree that any lay person could discuss a scripture.

No not at that time. Not among the Jewish lay population. Ten Commandments were the only thing publicly displayed and known (which incidentally is Jesus's position in Matthew 19).

So that part should be ok.

See above.

You seem to think Jesus could not have read scripture, and that lay people, nay not even his own followers, would have been interested in his opinion on the scriptures.

Watch Yentl. Jesus is identified as a mamzer by Jewish sources. Take that the way you want.

Perhaps too that authorities would not have been interested in discussing a scripture with him.

No definitely not. Samaritans claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) as well as from the priestly tribe of Levi. Only one was devoted to the (study of the) Lord = Deut 32.29.

[TedM]

Surely you would agree that any lay person could discuss a scripture.

No not at that time. Not among the Jewish lay population. Ten Commandments were the only thing publicly displayed and known (which incidentally is Jesus's position in Matthew 19).

I don't believe it. With teaching in the synagogues regularly, surely they heard more than the same 10 verses all the time. And, what good were the religious leaders if they never talked about any more than 10 verses with anybody other than their own. Seems ludicrous. But, perhaps you are right and I'm woefully ignorant?

You seem to think Jesus could not have read scripture, and that lay people, nay not even his own followers, would have been interested in his opinion on the scriptures.

Watch Yentl. Jesus is identified as a mamzer by Jewish sources. Take that the way you want.

This is 2 issues. As for reading, I thought I read that a certain percentage of lay people did know how to read. And what if a smart person wanted to teach himself to read? It can be done--esp if given some beginner lessons. As for lay people who followed him not being interested in his opinion on scriptures, that may be true if he was 'just' another lay person. I don't think it passes the common sense test -- his followers would be interested in EVERYTHING he had to say.

Perhaps too that authorities would not have been interested in discussing a scripture with him.

No definitely not. Samaritans claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) as well as from the priestly tribe of Levi. Only one was devoted to the (study of the) Lord = Deut 32.29.

This is gibberish to me. Connect the dots please.

[Secret Alias]

Ummm. Originally only the priests studied the Torah; they were the only ones who had access to the text. The Sadducees were a priestly tradition. I don't know what the Pharisees were. The reason I chose Matthew 19 is that Jesus takes the position of the idiotai while demonstrating himself to be an authority. The illiterate only knew the ten commandments but only they were given by God. The rest of the Pentateuch was written only with the authority of Moses not God. The position of the evangelist is the same as that of Paul with regards to the distinction between human and divine "wisdom" (a codeword for the two torahs). Jesus says Moses said something different than God [ie Jesus himself]. His authority comes from authoring the original (and only true) Torah. This section of text in the gospel presumes Jesus is divine.

[outhouse]

Jesus is identified as a mamzer by Jewish sources.
.

And Jewish sources are worthless as far as anthropological context.

[outhouse]

This is 2 issues. As for reading, I thought I read that a certain percentage of lay people did know how to read. And what if a smart person wanted to teach himself to read? It can be done--esp if given some beginner lessons. As for lay people who followed him not being interested in his opinion on scriptures, that may be true if he was 'just' another lay person. I don't think it passes the common sense test -- his followers would be interested in EVERYTHING he had to say.

Jesus as a Galilean in a peasant village should be illiterate, and teaching and healing to and for illiterate people.



Now the Hellenist who found the mythology and theology in the diaspora valuable were probably a bit more literate, and you could have and probably did have things being read in Pater Familias from almost the get go.

This is gibberish to me. Connect the dots please.

Agreed.

[TedM]

Ummm. Originally only the priests studied the Torah; they were the only ones who had access to the text. The Sadducees were a priestly tradition.

And they never talked about what they studied with anyone else? Evidence?

I don't know what the Pharisees were.

Seems odd that you seem to know so much about other things having to do with how the Jewish people thought and acted in the 1st century, but you don't know anything about the Pharisees. Perhaps I've misunderstood.

The reason I chose Matthew 19 is that Jesus takes the position of the idiotai while demonstrating himself to be an authority.... This section of text in the gospel presumes Jesus is divine.

So what? How does that say anything that is unhistorical? Is it because he quotes a verse about man and woman marrying from Genesis -- you think he never had heard that verse in his life or something, or that a 'lay person' would give it no credence simply because it wasn't one of the 10? Isn't it possible that verse was known to every lay person because it was said in wedding ceremonies like it is today?

Maybe you should start the thread over. I don't really know what compelling evidence you are relying on other than 'books' that say it is not likely that Jesus could read. You seem to be presuming that Jesus, as a lay person, could not have been different, and that others would not have treated him differently than 'just' another lay person. I don't know why anyone would assume that.