Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The gospel assumes that Jews did not recognize who Jesus was and implies that they should have (Matthew goes further as perhaps also the Marcionite original did). How could Mark have accused the Jews of not recognizing Jesus but himself was found guilty of the same charge with respect to his readership? He was more interested in creating a useful narrative than reporting history. The publication of the narrative was itself the first time Jews encountered "Jesus."

Stephan Huller wrote:But Purple Rain is complete fiction. Prince's dad never died and helped write many of his songs later. Purple Rain was just an extended video to help sell vinyl. It wasn't a historical documentary

I agree. But the core is based on a historical person - the young Prince who comes from Minneapolis, whose father was a washed-up, (somewhat) abusive former musician, goes from zero to hero, he has issues of creative control within his band, they play at First Avenue, the Time crew are his musical rivals etc. Yes, it's been smoothed over, but there are historical elements in there. I suspect the gospels are similar - it's a lot of gloss, but glossing over a historical reality of a known crucified Jewish cult leader.

Mac

Any reasonable discussion of the Gospel's relationship with the Apostle can't start with the existing canon which clearly reactionary against the original paradigm. That's silly.

Toejam

But the fact that Ted Bundy was married can't be similarly used to prove that all married men are serial killers.

toejam wrote:^I don't see Jesus in the gospels "inverting" the law. He seems to simply have a more liberal view on them, which is nothing out of the ordinary. Jews have forever been debating how strict or liberal the laws should be adhered to. That Jesus seemingly had an opinion doesn't mean he was "inverting" them. ... Paul on the other hand...

That Jesus [was portrayed as] seemingly [having] an opinion doesn't mean he [the narrative] was "inverting" them. ...

"Paul on the other hand"... was another narrative

Toejam

Are you familiar enough with traditional halakhah to be an authority on what is and isn't possible within Judaism? If not what is your opinion worth? Why even put forward an opinion?

Stephan Huller wrote:The gospel assumes that Jews did not recognize who Jesus was and implies that they should have (Matthew goes further as perhaps also the Marcionite original did). How could Mark have accused the Jews of not recognizing Jesus but himself was found guilty of the same charge with respect to his readership? He was more interested in creating a useful narrative than reporting history. The publication of the narrative was itself the first time Jews encountered "Jesus."

Yes, the publishers were "interested in creating a useful narrative".

A more interesting narrative than the then concurrent, numerous Gnostic salvation narratives.

[edited for spelling (then -> than; & to add 'then' before concurrent]

Stephan Huller wrote:FWIW I see the gospel as an apocalyptic text but also an anti-Torah. It is almost the inversion of the Jewish law. Both texts were pseudepigraphal, Ezra pretends to write a narrative about Moses so too Mark with respect to Jesus. But Moses passes off laws (hundreds) in the name of God whereas Jesus announces the dismantling of the old laws. Moses dies before the Entry, Jesus the same with respect to the destruction/galut. The twelve apostles/twelve tribes parallel etc.

I agree with this. It seems the NT texts are variations on OT-texts & prophecies there-in.

That Mark doesn't say anything about Jesus' childhood says nothing. How could Mark have overlooked introducing the background if there was a historical Jesus? Quite easily I suspect. In Mark, the spirit doesn't enter Jesus until his baptism, so everything before that is really unnecessary for his portrait. One might say that the baptism scene is the "background" part. To suggest that he should have said something else is really stretching for a "gap" to be filled IMO.

I don't need childhood reminiscences. It's the suddenness of the introduction. It lacks context to explain who he is and why he has authority (which would be expected).