Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

andrewbos wrote:My main reason is that none of the gospel authors or authors of the letters reveals any understanding of the teachings nor takes any real interest in them.

Peter Kirby wrote:Speaking of other forums,.

bcedaifu wrote:I am astonished by PK's notion of “objective”. Did Peter Kirby not complete grammar school science?

There is nothing remotely “objective” about Bernard's claim.

Bernard cites this passage, as evidence of a first century existence for Jesus of Nazareth:
Mark 15:21
και εγγαρευουϲιν παραγοντα τινα ϲιμωνα κυρηναι ον ερχομενον > απ αγρου τον πατερα αλεξανδρου και ρουφου· ϊνα αρη τον ϲταυρον·
αυτου

Of the 100K Jews living in κυρηναι, 2K years ago, how many were named ϲιμωνα ?

How many folks had children named αλεξανδρου ? ρουφου?

But, even if, for sake of argument, there really was only one male named Simon, from Cyrene, whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and even if we somehow assume that Mark knew them, how does that demonstrate, “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Do you know, as a fact, who Mark was, when he lived, where he lived, and who he had met, before putting quill to papyrus? If not, then, what is your basis for accepting as “objective” data, this claim about Simon? How does this story confirm a first century existence of a human Jesus, son of YHWH? Do you possess evidence of a manuscript authored by Mark, prior to the middle of the second century CE, when Justin Martyr writes of the Memoirs of the Apostles, based upon Mathew, in turn derived from Mark?

http://news.discovery.com/history/archa ... 141013.htm

Who is Mario Di Sorte? Why should we believe his story about the torture and execution of the South African warriors, Bobby Carter and Alfred Crinall, but the release, unharmed, of fellow prisoner John Ashby, of the USAA, given that all three enemy soldiers had been captured concurrently from the same cave? I am not proposing that Di Sorte lied, or erred. I simply possess no “objective”evidence to support his assertion.

Bernard's claim is bogus, because the “evidence” upon which his claim of a first century human named Jesus, son of YHWH, is based on a fable, not credible data, and not even eye-witness testimony. When we read Philo of Alexandria's letter to Gaius, do we accept at face value Philo's account of Herakles' heroic exploits, or do we regard that bit of Philo's text as purely make believe?

tanya wrote:So, I will ask again: What is there about that topic at the other forum, that you found meritorious? What is there about Peter Kirby's response to Bernard Muller that you found adequate? How can you accept, or do you? Muller's claim, that gMark 15:21 represents "objective" first century evidence of the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth?

Yes, I agree with you, it is nothing to write home to mother about. Question is, was it worth writing at all? And, if not, why make a link to a thread in another forum that is insipid, or lacks merit?

I was keen to encounter your link, proudfootz, and thanks again for that, but not because of what Peter Kirby wrote, but because of what he didn't write: he should have, or someone should have, taken Bernard Muller's claim, and shredded it, for there is absolutely nothing in Mark 15:21, of any historical value, in terms of identifying the existence of a human named Jesus of Nazareth.

Reading that exchange, in which Kirby uncritically accepts Bernard's facile comments as if praiseworthy, without dissecting the comment about Mark15:21, to show how it could be related, in some convoluted fashion, to offer evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, I am reminded of Tracer Tong's equally bizarre assertion that Lucian of Samosata's Passing of Peregrinus, (which Tong-san had argued, was not a work of fiction, but rather a parody, implying, that therefore this text) represented objective evidence in support of an historical Jesus.

Of the 100K Jews living in κυρηναι, 2K years ago, how many were named ϲιμωνα ?
How many folks had children named αλεξανδρου ? ρουφου?

But, even if, for sake of argument, there really was only one male named Simon, from Cyrene, whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and even if we somehow assume that Mark knew them, how does that demonstrate, “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

When talking about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the British Book Awards, Sanjeev Bhaskar stated that he chose 42 as the house number because in the Hitchhiker's series 42 features prominently as the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Bernard Muller wrote: Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Peter Kirby wrote:Speaking of other forums, the OP also brought another forum to my attention:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread ... apparently

James Hannam = the Venerable Bede.

If it weren't an echo chamber, the thread might have more than just finger wagging... I can't piece together two bits of real criticism from the thread, only a chorus of disapproval and apparent disgust. I assume it's therapeutic.

You can make any case look week by showing that every atom of evidence is subject to at least some doubt. By this treatment you can then collect a lot of doubt surrounding what is really a strong case.

neilgodfrey wrote:

Bernard Muller wrote: Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.