4 ms·

Can you give me a reference for this? The only evidence I've seen points in the opposite direction; e.g.: - The frequency and granularity of place names menti

by gwd 3y ago

Can you give me a reference for this? The only evidence I've seen points in the opposite direction; e.g.: - The frequency and granularity of place names mentioned match other documents where we're pretty sure the people actually travelled there; vs other documents where we're sure they never travelled there - The frequency of names and requirements for disambiguation (e.g., Jesus has two disciples named James, but only one named Bartholomew) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5Ylt1pBMm8 Regarding Aramaic: I'm just learning Biblical Greek, and one common pattern is rather than saying "X replied, '...'", to say 'X replied, saying '...'" (or "Replying, X said '...'". A Jewish friend who is a classicist told me that this pattern was a "semitism" -- i.e., not something you'd hear in native Koine Greek, but something imported from Aramaic / Hebrew. This would indicate at least that the original source material was written by native Aramaic speakers. (This latter bit is lower significance, because it was an offhand comment she made when discussing something else.)

Jedd 3y ago
Hmm, there's a LOT of inaccuracies between the gospels and trusted historical documents - the bottom section of rationalwiki's Gospel page [0] has some examples - though these are more historical than geographical. I was probably thinking of the author of Mark who had his Jesus doing the roundabout trip via Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, or the same author having Jesus stepping out of his boat and into a region that is actually 45km from the shore [1]. With regards Hebrew phrasing - I believe the author of Matthew was almost definitely Jewish, not sure on the authors of Mark (who I think was writing for a non-Jewish audience) or Luke. So they were writing in common Greek, but almost definitely were either Jewish, or spoke Hebrew, and/or were well versed in Jewish lore. Given the earliest copies we have date from a couple of hundred years after the alleged events, and would have been transcribed numerous times by then, we can't confidently read too much into the phrasing nuances, can we? [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels [1] pages 72 & 106 -https://ia800707.us.archive.org/17/items/NailedTenChristianMythsThatShowJesusNeverExistedAtAllPages3246/Nailed%20Ten%20Christian%20Myths%20That%20Show%20Jesus%20Never%20Existed%20at%20All-pages-3-246.pdf https://ia800707.us.archive.org/17/items/NailedTenChristianM...
- gwd 3y ago
  From page 72[ed]: > And on the other hand, if Mark received his Gos- pel from Peter, why is it that the other Gospels have more anecdotes about Peter, including for example, Je- sus telling him, “You are Peter the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church”? Would Peter himself for- get such an incident? It gets worse. Mark shows no un- derstanding of the social situation in the Holy Land, making numerous errors that no one living in early first century Judea would have made. Interestingly enough, when you compare Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels, one finds that the author of Matthew is constantly correcting Mark’s blunders about all aspects of Jewish society, re- ligion, the calendar, holidays, customs, attitudes – even repeated misquotes of scripture. I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book. Why did Mark not include it? The simplest answer is that he didn't think it was important. Mark is the shortest book -- there are lots of things that mark could have included and didn't. His implication is that somehow Mark didn't know where Peter / Cephas / Rock's nickname came from, which I find much more hard to believe than that he just decided not to include it. This is hardly the kind of evidence you can follow with "it gets worse". But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here -- what social situation is Mark allegedly showing no understanding of? What kinds of "errors" is he making? I can't go and verify what he's saying, or consider the claim critically myself. Is Mark's change an "error", showing a basic lack of knowledge about the societal situation? Or is it a deliberate "contextualization", to make the stories accessible to a Greek audience without having to explain loads of irrelevant cultural background? No way to check and judge for myself; I'm expected to just take it on his authority. And re the geographical "blunder" -- I someone in Cambridge, UK today said, "I'm going by way of Manchester to London", nobody would say they were committing a "geographical blunder". They'd understand that person to mean that they are going to first visit Manchester briefly, and then go to London. This sort of thing is exactly in line with other things I've read claiming that Jesus didn't exist; I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    > I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book. Coincidentally, this fairly describes the reaction of a sceptic reading the book of Mark. Anyway, you quoted entirely the wrong section, given your earlier question. > "“from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis,” a trip 50 miles out of his way, on foot!" Someone going from Cambridge to London via Manchester .. would take the train, or a bus, or drive. As noted, this was a walking journey. It could be hand-waved away, but aren't you curious why someone would mention an 80km detour but not give the reader any tidbits about why, or what went on in Sidon that was worth a) the massive detour & effort, and b) mentioning? I agree, however, that this is not, by itself, a compellingly damning piece of evidence. I hope you don't think it was meant as such. > But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here. Again, you're echoing the sentiment of people reading these works and wondering why there's no source citations, why the authors don't identify themselves, why there's no record of dates, why there's no critical analysis offered. That book I pointed you at contains a lengthy bibliography, and in fairness was intended to provide an overview of the field. There are certainly much more detailed works - including that author's follow-up trilogy Mything In Action, which I can highly recommend. Obviously Price, Carrier, et al, provide a wealth of very detailed analysis, if you are indeed genuinely interested. > I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into. Are you perhaps strongly invested in a particular position on this subject?
angiosperm 3y ago
The frequency of personal names demonstrate conclusively that all accounts are wholesale fiction. Jesus ("Yeshua") was the single most common name among Jews of the time, with numerous examples noted in Josephus. Yet, they have no account of their puppet encountering a single example in a year's wandering the region.

by gwd 3y ago

Jedd 3y ago

Hmm, there's a LOT of inaccuracies between the gospels and trusted historical documents - the bottom section of rationalwiki's Gospel page [0] has some examples - though these are more historical than geographical. I was probably thinking of the author of Mark who had his Jesus doing the roundabout trip via Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, or the same author having Jesus stepping out of his boat and into a region that is actually 45km from the shore [1]. With regards Hebrew phrasing - I believe the author of Matthew was almost definitely Jewish, not sure on the authors of Mark (who I think was writing for a non-Jewish audience) or Luke. So they were writing in common Greek, but almost definitely were either Jewish, or spoke Hebrew, and/or were well versed in Jewish lore. Given the earliest copies we have date from a couple of hundred years after the alleged events, and would have been transcribed numerous times by then, we can't confidently read too much into the phrasing nuances, can we? [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gospels [1] pages 72 & 106 -https://ia800707.us.archive.org/17/items/NailedTenChristianMythsThatShowJesusNeverExistedAtAllPages3246/Nailed%20Ten%20Christian%20Myths%20That%20Show%20Jesus%20Never%20Existed%20at%20All-pages-3-246.pdf https://ia800707.us.archive.org/17/items/NailedTenChristianM...

gwd 3y ago
From page 72[ed]: > And on the other hand, if Mark received his Gos- pel from Peter, why is it that the other Gospels have more anecdotes about Peter, including for example, Je- sus telling him, “You are Peter the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church”? Would Peter himself for- get such an incident? It gets worse. Mark shows no un- derstanding of the social situation in the Holy Land, making numerous errors that no one living in early first century Judea would have made. Interestingly enough, when you compare Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels, one finds that the author of Matthew is constantly correcting Mark’s blunders about all aspects of Jewish society, re- ligion, the calendar, holidays, customs, attitudes – even repeated misquotes of scripture. I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book. Why did Mark not include it? The simplest answer is that he didn't think it was important. Mark is the shortest book -- there are lots of things that mark could have included and didn't. His implication is that somehow Mark didn't know where Peter / Cephas / Rock's nickname came from, which I find much more hard to believe than that he just decided not to include it. This is hardly the kind of evidence you can follow with "it gets worse". But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here -- what social situation is Mark allegedly showing no understanding of? What kinds of "errors" is he making? I can't go and verify what he's saying, or consider the claim critically myself. Is Mark's change an "error", showing a basic lack of knowledge about the societal situation? Or is it a deliberate "contextualization", to make the stories accessible to a Greek audience without having to explain loads of irrelevant cultural background? No way to check and judge for myself; I'm expected to just take it on his authority. And re the geographical "blunder" -- I someone in Cambridge, UK today said, "I'm going by way of Manchester to London", nobody would say they were committing a "geographical blunder". They'd understand that person to mean that they are going to first visit Manchester briefly, and then go to London. This sort of thing is exactly in line with other things I've read claiming that Jesus didn't exist; I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into.
- Jedd 3y ago
  > I'm afraid this is just not informative at all, and doesn't give me a good impression of the rest of the book. Coincidentally, this fairly describes the reaction of a sceptic reading the book of Mark. Anyway, you quoted entirely the wrong section, given your earlier question. > "“from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis,” a trip 50 miles out of his way, on foot!" Someone going from Cambridge to London via Manchester .. would take the train, or a bus, or drive. As noted, this was a walking journey. It could be hand-waved away, but aren't you curious why someone would mention an 80km detour but not give the reader any tidbits about why, or what went on in Sidon that was worth a) the massive detour & effort, and b) mentioning? I agree, however, that this is not, by itself, a compellingly damning piece of evidence. I hope you don't think it was meant as such. > But it gets worse. There's absolutely no detail here. Again, you're echoing the sentiment of people reading these works and wondering why there's no source citations, why the authors don't identify themselves, why there's no record of dates, why there's no critical analysis offered. That book I pointed you at contains a lengthy bibliography, and in fairness was intended to provide an overview of the field. There are certainly much more detailed works - including that author's follow-up trilogy Mything In Action, which I can highly recommend. Obviously Price, Carrier, et al, provide a wealth of very detailed analysis, if you are indeed genuinely interested. > I've never seen anything to make me think it's worth spending more of my time digging into. Are you perhaps strongly invested in a particular position on this subject?

angiosperm 3y ago

The frequency of personal names demonstrate conclusively that all accounts are wholesale fiction. Jesus ("Yeshua") was the single most common name among Jews of the time, with numerous examples noted in Josephus. Yet, they have no account of their puppet encountering a single example in a year's wandering the region.