Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:02 am Hi.

1 I presume you're only referring to Jeremiah being rejected prior to the [first] fall of Jesusalem, not to 'Jesus' son of Nun also being rejected.

2 did you mean Elijah-Elisha or, in fact, Elijah-Elishua? Is Elishua interchangeable with Elisha?

[/list]

3 Is there a 'Jeremiah-Jesus son of Jehozadak narrative'? If so, can you point to where it is?

---

eta
Nun, the father of Joshua (son of Nun, of course), is aka Nun ben Elishama ...

Elishama is the name of 7 different men in the 'OT' (aka the Tanakh), including the one aka Elishua listed as a son of David in 2 Samuel 5:15, 1 Chronicles 3:6 and 1 Chronicles 14:5

See

1. https://biblehub.com/topical/e/elishama.htm, and
2. https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... e/Elishama

1 Chronicles 7:26-7 lists an Elishama, son of Ammihud, as the father of Nun and grandfather of the great Yeshua-Joshua

And Numbers 1:10 lists Elishama son of Ammihud as one of several tribal representatives selected by The Lord to assist Moses with a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 4:02 am

Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem. In this he mirrors Jesus son of Nun and Jeremiah in being rejected 40 years prior to the fall of Jerusalem.¹ That is why Jesus of Nazareth is dated to 30 Ce as far as I can tell. Look into how the Elijah-Elishua² narrative and the Jeremiah-Jesus son of Jehozadak narrative³ mimic the Moses-Jesus son of Nun narrative.

Hi.

1 I presume you're only referring to Jeremiah being rejected prior to the [first] fall of Jesusalem, not to 'Jesus' son of Nun also being rejected.

3 Is there a 'Jeremiah-Jesus son of Jehozadak narrative'? If so, can you point to where it is?

dbz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 8:02 am

Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem.

1) Because of the sins of Jacob (i.e James)/Israel?

Isaiah 40:2 ἱερεῖς λαλήσατε εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ιερουσαλημ παρακαλέσατε αὐτήν ὅτι ἐπλήσθη ἡ ταπείνωσις αὐτῆς λέλυται αὐτῆς ἡ ἁμαρτία ὅτι ἐδέξατο ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου διπλᾶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῆς

ἐδέξατο: received
ἐκ χειρὸς κυρίου: from the hand of the Lord
διπλᾶ: double
τὰ ἁμαρτήματα: the sins
αὐτῆς: of her

"She received from the hand of the Lord double her sins."

2) Did the Markan author use contested/unattested (i.e. lost to history) sources?

gMark-->

• Homer & Vergil + Greek Mimesis
• "The Offering of Isaac . . . . 4: death and resurrection". "God had resurrected Isaac [from death]". Vridar.

The only "lost to us" source I think of is the possibility of one source that combines the common elements of the Jesus son of Jehozadak story found in Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. But there is always another possible source out there like where the Enoch stories were found in the DSS.
I think Isaiah 40:3 is quoted to compare the two conquests of Jerusalem. It is YHWH's anointed who conquers Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Vespasian, are all picked by YHWH to interact with Israel for YHWH's purposes. That Malachi, with its mentions of Moses and Elijah, is also mixed in, tells us that Mark is using the various prior Judean Jesus tales (son of Nun, Elisha). This appears to be a tell tale of Mimesis, alerting the reader to the author's sources. I don't think of it as prophecy (predictive) and prophecy answered. But yes, aware readers would know verses prior to and after 40:3 and especially in this case 40:2 is appropriate.

Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 9:33 am ...this is the first time seeing that...

• Seen Palmero?

Chris Palmero on what Justin knew: Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:53 am

His citations of the Gospels conflict with them on so many key issues that the best explanation is that he was working off a number of disparate texts that may have had some connection with the canonical gospels but did not represent them in their final forms. As one example out of very many, he puts the episode of the disciples abandoning Jesus after the Crucifixion. So the "strike the shepherd" vignette that Mark and Matthew put right after the arrest is transferred by Justin to after the Crucifixion. The only Canonical gospel that preserves something close to that is John, but Justin actually doesn't seem to have John because he never cites any specifically Johannine material. His immediate source would appear to be the Preaching of Peter and at least one other document that was actually more focused on how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies than it was a record of his ministry and career.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1038530526485151

dbz wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 9:36 am

• Chris Palmero. "Born in the Second Century". borninthesecondcentury.com.

Chris Palmero examines and compares two passages from ancient books: one that suggests an early origin for Christianity, and one that suggests that Christianity was indeed BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY. In our first vision in this Temple of Time, we listen as Justin Martyr tells us about geriatric volcel Christians in 156 AD. In our second vision, from the gospel of Matthew, we listen to Jesus' infamous statement about John the Baptist that seems to suggest that John was really a figure from the distant, murky past - and not a contemporary of Jesus at all.

Anyone who listens to this episode can learn about the host's Catholic background, about why this is not an anti-Christian show, about the lack of evidence for an early origin of Christianity, about Mark changing the day of Jesus' death, about Justin Martyr and his time and place, and about the temporal paradox created when the gospels merged the timelines of Jesus and John the Baptist.

Opening reading: The fake travel diary of Thessalos of Tralles shows us how common forgery was in the Hellenistic world, and what implications that may have for Pliny's famous letter to Trajan concerning Christians.

00:47 - Reading: THESSALOS OF TRALLES, On the Virtues of Herbs.
14:34 - Intro and General REMARKS. Background of the Host.
22:26 - No Evidence for a First Century ORIGIN.
28:20 - Excursus: MARK Changed the Day of Jesus' Death.
36:18 - Our Opponents Generally Motivated by a FAITH Motive.
39:07 - Intro to the TEMPLE OF TIME.
42:38 - First Vision: JUSTIN MARTYR, First Apology 15.
1:02:01 - Second Vision: MATTHEW on John the Baptist (Matt 11:12).
1:28:08 - CLOSING Remarks.

---

"9. John the Baptist and Justin Martyr in the Temple of Time. - Born in the Second Century".

---

A few months ago I was asked about good secular histories of Christianity. I’ve never actually found a good one, at least in the sense they meant, so I recommended Loisy’s books. But I thought I would share some of the tools essential to me in radical criticism for those interested in this subject. Now most of my research materials are online (including the many indispensable materials from Jewish perspectives, such as the J.A.B.) but I needed to have a bunch of physical books for whenever I do online dating – I need sharable visual evidence of why I haven’t seemed to have left my home in fifteen years. “I mean, I do a lot of reading, so…”

To be a radical critic along the lines of Rylands (d. 1942), Detering (d. 2018), or Palmero (d. 2052), you will have to quickly get used to the accusation that you’ve never read X, Y, or Z. Remember: (1) no one can ever read all of the material written on this subject, (2) most of the existing material conflicts with most other material and (3) there is no silver bullet that can defeat radical criticism, except a truly breakthrough archaeological discovery.
[Image and caption of a laid out book collection]
1. A well-vacuumed carpet – essential, as you will be spending most of your time indoors
2. Row 1
A. Eusebius – this is the translation from Paul “Eusebius Said Nothing Wrong” Maier, but it’s pictured here to indicate that you’re gonna need a Eusebius in some form
B. Kelber / Mark’s Story of Jesus – he demonstrates via literary criticism that Mark is a completely literary creation, but for some reason backs off of the full implications of this. You can easily fill in the blanks yourself, but don’t do it in public because you might risk a “You Know Nothing of My Work” moment with Herr Kelber in the role of the “You Know Nothing” man
C. Trobisch / First Edition of NT – The New Testament was arranged consciously by an editor and all subsequent manuscripts were based on this collated edition. A powerful weapon, considering how mainstream the author is
D. Schweitzer / Quest of Historical Jesus – My ex-girlfriend told me that no woman moves into a house without purchasing a toilet brush. I am simply relating what she said to me verbatim; that is not my own opinion. But just so, no radical critic moves into a house without a Quest of the Historical Jesus
D. Mack / Myth of Innocence – He demonstrates that Mark was a literary creation almost in its entirety. He, too, backs off the implications of this but in his case I expect a deathbed confession of mythicism
E. Koester / Ancient Christian Gospels – useful for its record of the earliest gospel citations, but it’s also example of a relatively conservative scholar challenging readings that are even more conservative. Therefore our opponents are found to be fighting one another, like when Sapphire Weapon fought against Shinra in Final Fantasy 7, allowing the heroes to escape
F. Tried Money Changers Apocrypha – a weird book that slaps together Jewish and Christian apocrypha. Useful if you like 1000 page books with no table of contents
3. Row 2
A. BeDuhn / First New Testament – Thankfully you will not need another resource on Marcion’s gospel because this book presents it in Dwarf Fortress levels of detail
B. Price / Amazing Colossal Apostle – In the first half of the book he builds a case that Paul is either Simon Magus or a Simonian. The second half is invaluable because it’s a line by line analysis of what he sees as the composite layers of Paul’s text. He deprecates this book often, calling it a “brick.” It’s a BRICK OF TRUTH imo
C. Your ass is gonna need a Septuagint
D. Dead Sea Scrolls – I honestly never saw the significance of these, but 90% of your audience will ask about them, so I got a book called “The Dead Sea Scrolls” with no subtitle. If you’re not going the Eisenman route, then the signficance of the DSS toward early Christianity can be summed up in three paragraphs probably
E. Schneemelcher Apocrypha – about as important as the NT itself
F. Companion to Second Century Heretics – Essays by mostly Finnish scholars with some cutting-edge stuff about heretics. I mean to say that most of the scholars are Finnish, not that each individual scholar is mostly Finnish
4. Row 3
A. Antiqua Mater – the Mao’s Red Book of radicalism
B. Schurer / Jewish People in the Time of Jesus / Jewish Literature in the Time of Jesus – One can go either way on this, but I prefer to have more resources in my collection than less. Just treat it like an extraction mission: go in, get what you need, and get out
C. Thompson / Mythic Past – For me it was either spend 50 years studying the entire Old Testament, or just read this book which gives a good enough explanation of its provenance
D. Maccoby / Paul and Hellenism – Pretty much a comfort book because he hardly likes to cite anything, but it shows just how breezily the conservative paradigms can be dispensed with. If anyone says that Maccoby’s analysis is too simplistic, just pretend that someone’s texting you and say “Sorry, I have to take this”
E. Strauss / Life of Jesus Critically Examined – translated by George Eliot. I would say its indispensible, but stylistically, I think that 19th century prose authors could use to tone it quite down a bit
F. Sanders / Studying the Synoptic Gospels – Read this book by this kick-ass husband and wife team so that no one can accuse of you of not reading conventional scholarship about the NT. It’s basically a college textbook that sums up the conventional paradigm
G. Loisy – This two-in-one book is my go-to recommendation for people interested in early Christianity. I think his most important contribution was to show the evolution of the concept of the “Lord’s Supper” throughout the texts. Also, he is one of the few people who truly cares about the actual timeline of Jesus’ crucifixion, whether it happened on the Day of Preparation or on the Passover itself, which to me is the main indicator of whether someone is truly invested in these books
5. Row 4
A. The blue book is Supernatural Religion by Walter Cassels, necessary for its discussion of NT attestations in early Christian documents. He was kind of the New Atheist of his day so you have to slog through a LOT of 19th century-style trolling of the damnable theists
B. Zindler / Jesus the Jews Never Knew – if you can mentally tune out all the New Atheist rhetoric, it’s a useful guide to Jesus references in Jewish literature. I think Zindler’s best contribution was (in my opinion correctly) arguing that all the John the Baptist material was interpolated into Mark
C. Streeter / Four Gospels – this is another sham shield so that no one can accuse you of reading scholars that only support your position. You get a 2-for-1 by reading this because at least in my opinion, NT scholars have not really substantially moved away from Streeter’s position, even though for some reason they claim otherwise
D. Maccoby / Mythmaker – Paul was not a Pharisee, cf. Row 3D
E. Layton / Gnostic Scriptures – you will probably need at least three Nag Hammadi books, but this Layton character is a knowledgable fellow when it comes to these texts
F. Rudolph / Gnosis – If people try arguing that Christianity preceded gnosticism you can either read this book and refute them therefrom; otherwise it’s big enough to throw in their direction to ward them off
G. Price / Pre-Nicene New Testament – I would say that people could even get this in lieu of an actual New Testament. He includes about 70% of the early Christian texts and makes hardly any OJ Simpson references in this one. Generally speaking, in a book about Christianity you want no more than 1.75 OJ Simpsons references per chapter

---

--Palmero, Chris (9 December 2020). “Radical Christianity Critic Starter Pack”. Facebook.

[30:09]

Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus: dbz wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:54 am

[30:42]

---

dbz wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:40 pm "Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus". @time:00:30:09 per 2:18:26. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 31 August 2024.

Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 10:40 am

Jesus Tales wrote: ↑Sat Aug 31, 2024 11:12 pm Mark is, imho, about the fall of Jerusalem.

...the two conquests of Jerusalem. It is YHWH's anointed who conquers Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Vespasian, are all picked by YHWH to interact with Israel for YHWH's purposes.

1. The "two conquests" dated?
2. What is your Markan chronology of authorship & redaction?

Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus: dbz wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:54 am

---

"Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus". @time:00:31:20 per 2:18:26. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 31 August 2024.

• see @rgprice posts and study of this topic.

Re: What is your current definition of Jesus?: dbz wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 6:24 am

rgprice wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 5:40 am For me the question is very simple. Were the Gospel narratives based upon the life of a real person named Jesus? Are they accounts of the ministry teachings of a real person named Jesus?

If the answer is no then "Jesus did not exist."

If yes. Then Jesus, a H. sapien on Earth, is defined as one whose historicity is > 50 percent on a methodologically correct Bayesian approach to the putative valid evidence.

There's no evidence whatsoever or no good evidence to put Nazareth as an actual Community or actual town city there in the first three decades of the first century.

---

"Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus". @time:00:31:20 per 2:18:26. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 31 August 2024.

• Diocaesarea is a historic name for the town of Sepphoris in Israel.

The combined evidence of these three sites indicates that Nazareth was inhabited from at least the early first century...

---

--Ken Dark (2020). "The Archaeology of Nazareth in the Early First Century". bibleinterp.arizona.edu.

Re: What is the earliest evidence that Nazareth was called Nazareth?: Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 12:16 am

dbz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:53 pm But does demonstrate that someone was keen to build churches within ~5KM of each other.

Yes, the text does raise a few questions But no matter what the truth of what is reported, it is at least a literary text about the intention to build churches in Galilee, including Nazareth.

dbz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 2:53 pm

• Diocaesarea is a historic name for the town of Sepphoris in Israel.

I noticed this too, but it seems to be a translation error. The Greek text reads: „τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα ἐν Τιβεριάδι καὶ ἐν Διοκαισαρείᾳ τῇ καὶ Σεπφουρὶν καὶ ἐν Ναζαρὲτ καὶ ἐν Καπερναοὺμ …“

It apparently means: „in Tiberias and in Diocaesarea (what is also Sepphoris) and in Nazareth and in Capernaum …“

Re: What is the earliest evidence that Nazareth was called Nazareth?: dbz wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 11:51 am Given Herod Antipas' extensive development efforts and Josephus' references to the city's central role. It is possible that Sepphoris became an administrative capital somewhere between the early and the late 1st century CE.

When a village approximately 2.8 kilometers (1.7 miles) from the city-center of Sepphoris—perhaps named Ναζαρὲτ/Nazarét—was first inhabited is irrelevant to the Markan author (who is possibly writing in the 2nd century CE).

The only datum the Markan author was concerned about was that the word Nazarét was a location in the "Galilaía tón ethnón" and that it could be related to/like Nazōraios (Ναζωραῖος).

For the Markan author's purpose Nazarét being 1.7 miles or 17 miles from Sepphoris is irrelevant.

That the Markan author does not explicitly mention Sepphoris, is explicable, if he was referring to the city itself as symbolic of "Galilaía tón ethnón". Or he knew Sepphoris was to close to Nazarét and did want to send a mixed message per Mark 6:4: “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own household.” And thus never deigns to cite Sepphoris.

Kilometre distance	"Legio". Wikipedia. "Coordinates: 32°34′20″N 35°10′13″E"	"Nazareth". Wikipedia. Coordinates: 32°42′07″N 35°18′12″E	"Mount Tabor". Wikipedia. Coordinates: 32°41′14″N 35°23′25″E
"Legio". Wikipedia. "Coordinates: 32°34′20″N 35°10′13″E"		12.1	34.2
"Nazareth". Wikipedia. Coordinates: 32°42′07″N 35°18′12″E	12.1		17.7
"Mount Tabor". Wikipedia. Coordinates: 32°41′14″N 35°23′25″E	34.2	17.7

Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus: dbz wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 7:54 am

---

"Meeting the Authors of Christ Before Jesus". @time:00:36:51 per 2:18:26. YouTube. Godless Engineer. 31 August 2024.

Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 9:22 am John (and myself) both have raised the point that the meat of their book, i.e., the sources for Jesus are all forgeries from the second century and later, doesn't actually lead to the conclusion that Jesus never existed.