Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:53 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:48 am Is there a non-Christian text example of the era for what you believe about Mark?

A possible answer:

the clearest literary alliance for the gospel of Mark is Satyrica by Petronius which came into being about the same time as the gospel of Mark.

In what ways is it “the clearest literary alliance”?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:53 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:48 am Is there a non-Christian text example of the era for what you believe about Mark?

A possible answer:

the clearest literary alliance for the gospel of Mark is Satyrica by Petronius which came into being about the same time as the gospel of Mark.

In what ways is it “the clearest literary alliance”?

References are in the my quotes above from the linked thesis.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:00 pm

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:57 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:53 am

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:48 am Is there a non-Christian text example of the era for what you believe about Mark?

A possible answer:

the clearest literary alliance for the gospel of Mark is Satyrica by Petronius which came into being about the same time as the gospel of Mark.

In what ways is it “the clearest literary alliance”?

References are in the my quotes above from the linked thesis.

For example?

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:03 pm For example?

For further details, I refer to the thesis. At any case, I don't follow the idea.

I think that in the Earliest post-70 Gospel (very similar to proto-Mark but not to our Mark),

1) Jesus was killed by the Jews and not by Pilate.

2) there was no reference at all to Elijiah, Moses and John the Baptist,

3) there was no reference at all to Roman soldiers and /or governors

4) there was no reference at all to Herod.

5) the identity of Jesus is unknown (meaning: we don't know if the author of proto-Mark adored the god of the Jews).

Jesus was euhemerized by a vulgar anti-Semitic (meaning better: anti-Jewish) rumor as that offered in 1 Thess 2:14-16: the ''Jews'' killed the Christ. Period. It was enough simple and minimal that it was put on the mouth of Paul post-mortem.

That rumor was partially a correction of previous legends of presumed Christian martyrdoms (of John, of James, of Paul, of the ''Nazarenes''): so now it is only the Christ who is persecuted and crucified by the Jews, and not only the his material body (who is the Church).

In case anyone missed the obvious, the Satyricon isn’t exactly super subtle about being satire.

This “thesis” isn’t relevant.

This thread, in being brought back from the dead, testifies to the fact that what I commented on then still holds true.

Bizarro modern interpretations are sometimes just that!

Martin Klatt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:40 am I see Giuseppe provided you with a text you asked for

You are being credulous. Giuseppe is notoriously completely unreliable and without any credibility. Most days without even a half-hearted effort to be anything but a completely transparent propagandist.

What I described wasn’t actually provided.

Your belief is not based on historical or scientific reasons. If it were, you would know already that you need to examine the artifacts of the past in their historical context, not according to prejudices and inclinations.

Skepticism starts at home.

It is true that I am "notoriously completely unreliable and without any credibility. Most days without even a half-hearted effort to be anything but a completely transparent propagandist." But I am not a propagandist, at least not in this forum. I am only curious about anything may help the mythicist cause and about new possible marcionite interpretations of the Gospel. And frankly, there are very few things going in that direction (more for the absence of source than for deliberate will of the forumists). And surely a hypothetical historicist propagandist would be not in a better situation.