Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And just to make clear - I am not uncritically 'accepting' the Marcionite view of the canonical gospels. It is standard to see Mark behind Matthew and Luke and no one in antiquity gave Mark the rank of 'eyewitness.' At best he was one of the 72 (= De Recta in Deum Fide) but even this this marginal position does not go so far as to claim that he was an eye-witness. The Coptic tradition can be argued to 'know' this position with his standard epithet θεορρήμων. But its difficult to know what this term actually means. Perhaps it can be argued that the Muratorian canon begins with the idea that all the things in Mark's gospel were personally witnessed by him. But again it's not controversial to agree with the Marcionite position in De Recta in Deum Fide that none of the (Catholic) canonical gospels were written by eyewitnesses.

to MrMacSon,

There do not appear to be any primary (ie. contemporaneous) sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels and Pauline epistles are not primary sources.

The definition of "primary" does not entail "contemporaneous". Here are some below, the first ones I found on Google. I comply with the bolded ones.

From Google "official" definition:
adjective
1.
of chief importance; principal.
"the government's primary aim is to see significant reductions in unemployment"
synonyms: main, chief, key, prime, central, principal, foremost, first, first-line, most important, predominant, paramount; informal number-one
"our primary role"
antonyms: secondary, subordinate
2.
earliest in time or order of development.
"the primary stage of their political education"
synonyms: original, earliest, initial, first; More
antonyms: secondary
not derived from, caused by, or based on anything else.
"the research involved the use of primary source materials in national and local archives"

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primary
pri·ma·ry adjective
1.
first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal:
his primary goals in life.
2.
first in order in any series, sequence, etc.
3.
first in time; earliest; primitive.

... a/ what are the sequences of events?

... b/ what are the datings of the writings?

I addressed a/ & b/ all along my website and blog, especially in http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html for gospels and http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html & http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html for Paul & his epistles.
I looked into the dating of John the Baptist & Jesus public life here:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html & http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html

I got more webpages and blog posts addressing the issue of dating and sequencing of events & texts.

Cordially, Bernard

Well if we assume that Paul (someone writing before the fall of the temple) wrote 1 Cor 11, 1 Cor 15:3-11 and Gal 1:18-19, then it's not exactly nuts to suggest that there was a guy claiming to know some guys who knew a Jesus, who they worshiped as their cultic founder. So it's not a simple problem either, even as to the question of whether we have evidence that can be taken as sufficient to establish a reasonable probability. There are lots of simple problems in history--the historical Adam and Eve or Noah or Mithras, for example, can be regarded as historically simple to solve (no such). Same for a historical Augustus Caesar (one such). It's a very involved problem, with lots of hairy questions of sources and interpretation involved. We wish for a simpler time of it, but that wish is not granted.

And why is the transmission of documents and traditions in Christianity so difficult to figure out? Why can't Christians FROM THE VERY BEGINNING agree on even the most basic details about who or what they venerate? The certainty that so many have about 'the historical (man) Jesus' should not be so straightforward as many (Bernard) pretend. Why would the heretics (Marcionites) make the absurd claim that Paul - a man who never saw Jesus as a human being - wrote the gospel from which all others were based? Bernard's answer is simple - they were absurd. But its strange that we 'rely' or 'take comfort in' a tradition of 'ignorant peasants' who couldn't keep good records of 'primitive documents' and reject a circle of Platonists (cf. Clement of Alexandria's description of the Marcionites) who apparently were meticulous record keepers (i.e. they rejected even the slightest variation in their 'original' records). Something's not quite kosher about this scenario.

Could it be that they (the Marcionites) argued for Jesus being a historical supernatural being. In other words, Paul is denied to be a 'witness' for Jesus because - again - they (the Marcionites) denied that he was a person of flesh and blood. In short - Paul and the Marcionites thought that he had the same type of experience 'witnessing' Jesus as anyone else.

Anyone who argues for the certainty of Jesus the human being MUST dismiss the Marcionites as a reliable tradition - something which I (and many others) think is tantamount to reckless scholarship.

to Stephan,

Come on Bernard. If you had so many readers why are you wasting your time with us?

I have readers (around 120 hits per day) but I still want to interface with mostly hostile people to see what are their objections on my ideas. You do the same too, even if, I guess, you have a significant number of readers on your own blog.
I do not consider participating on this forum as a waste of time, more so because I have a lot of time to do so.

We all know each other pretty well at this forum. I don't think you're stupid but let's be honest - you overstate your abilities (you have little or no familiarity with Greek working in a field that demands it)

So I am not stupid! what a compliment!
I do not know much Greek, but I put a lot of importance to the underlying Greek for any translations. Thanks to many tools I can find on the web, I can scrutinize any ancient Greek word (which I do often).

and you have all the insight and imagination of a watermelon.

I curtailed my imagination of the topic of the historical Jesus. This is part of my methodology. I rather stay close to the evidence than letting my imagination run wild.
I do not know why you combine insight with imagination. I do not think I am deficient in insight, far from that.

The bottom line is that you spend time here because you have nowhere else to go.

I got many other places to go if I want to, and sometimes I participate on other forums & blogs (ask Carrier!). However I do not want to spend too much time of the keyboard. I have other things which interest me.

Cordially, Bernard

The point is that because of your lack of abilities in Greek your site cannot be considered in the same league as 'serious research' conducted in the university.

And my critique of your approach is consistent.

1. you are not stupid, you have above average intelligence but no or little ability in Greek.
2. you have the imagination and insight of a watermelon.
3. you've spent considerable effort understanding the New Testament some of which is occasionally interesting but in light of (1) and (2) yours cannot be considered a top tier site.

I was alerted by a friend that my blog ranked surprisingly high on Peter Kirby's recent ranking http://peterkirby.com/top-50-spring-2015.html#more-1339 if I am reading the list correctly of course. But in all fairness I have - like you - lots and lots of pages which tends to increase rankings (I suspect). I don't post much any more. I always viewed it as more of a scrapbook of ideas that I had rather than - as you pretend about your blog - that it is some 'definitive statement' about 'the Bible' or the New Testament. I rarely refer people to read my blog and often (as John T has noted) copy and paste ideas from there to here to make a point. It seems deluded for amateur hobbyists such as ourselves to claim to have a 'top tier' anything.

I think if you became friends with real scholars - i.e. people with language abilities - it will help put your in your place. I recommend making friends with a scholar who can function seamlessly in Greek, Latin, Hebrew AND Aramaic (someone like Morton Smith or my friend Rory Boid). Watch that person interpret a text and then try to follow up with one of your 'top tier' insights. You will soon understand. It is dangerous for anyone to live alone in their own thought. It gives you an unreasonable sense of your own importance. Not speaking ancient languages is a big obstacle to having your site taken seriously by anyone other than you and others who lack Sprachgefühl.

Bernard Muller wrote:to MrMacSon,

There do not appear to be any primary (ie. contemporaneous) sources for Jesus of Nazareth. The gospels and Pauline epistles are not primary sources.

The definition of "primary" does not entail "contemporaneous".

The definition of *primary-source*, in relation to the Historical Method, does entail 'contemporaneous', Bernard.

the "Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources1 and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

• 1 "Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way ... In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source ... is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science2, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person."
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
  
  • 2 eg. Princeton University
    
    "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:
    
    • ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, autobiographies, official records
      CREATIVE WORKS: Poetry, drama, novels, music, art
      RELICS OR ARTIFACTS: Pottery, furniture, clothing, buildings
    "What is a secondary source?
    "A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them."