You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Bannasidhe

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

Show the evidence.
What evidence exists outside of the Bible either documentary or archaeological?
Show non-biblical evidence of the lives and deaths of the apostles
.
I should warn you that any sites you link to will need to have proper academic credentials.

As for the reasons 11 apostles died - in your opinion - people suffer violent deaths for things they don't believe in so that in an of itself proves nothing.
Millions of them in the case of wars.

storker

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon

What some or indeed many people imagine to be common sense is not evidence of anything.

since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths.

Quite a few truths have been discovered by human observation. You make use of many of them on a daily basis.

Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

This I can agree with, but I don't feel the need to bundle everything beyond the shell up into a package labelled "God did this stuff".

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.

Unfortunately, this is another barb frequently trotted out by believers: the notion that atheists must be so because they read Harris, Dawkins and please don't leave out Hitchins. I'm surprised you even allowed that they read a whole book and didn't just dismiss their position as having come about by watching a few YouTube videos. If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, why hold back? Beleive it or not, I worked my own opinion out for myself, without any assistance, before the age of 20, at a time when this country was still very steeped in religion, nobody had heard of Hitchens et al, and the Internet didn't even exist.

By the way, can you tell me who diagnosed Harris and Dawkins as narcissists?

Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

I'm not familiar with either Planck's or Gauss's writings. They were entitled to their opinion, but it seems to that if they claimed something was self-evident, then they obviously didn't have any real evidence. There is no shortage, by the way, of atheist scientists.

Bannasidhe

storker wrote: »

Unfortunately, this is another barb frequently trotted out by believers: the notion that atheists must be so because they read Harris, Dawkins and please don't leave out Hitchins. I'm surprised you even allowed that they read a whole book and didn't just dismiss their position as having come about by watching a few YouTube videos. If you're going to insult someone's intelligence, why hold back? Beleive it or not, I worked my own opinion out for myself, without any assistance, before the age of 20, at a time when this country was still very steeped in religion, nobody had heard of Hitchens et al, and the Internet didn't even exist.

I have never read Harris or Hitchens. I have read Dawkins and consider that time I'm never getting back.

I have also read the Bible several times, and the commentaries on it from the likes of Bede, Strabo, and Thomas Aquinas plus the works of Thomas Moore, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Erasmus, and even - heaven help me :P - Henry VIII'S Defence of the Catholic Religion.

And yet I have been, and remain, an atheist since the early 1980s.

Yellow_Fern

storker wrote: »

No, it's irrelevant. Why would I need to resort to debating trickery when the evidence supports my position? My arguments apply equally to the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic gods and all other gods that don't exist. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the universality of monotheism because tt makes no difference; the monotheistic god is as universally non-existent as it is specifically non-existent.

They don't apply equally because Roman polytheism was entirely different to monotheism faiths like Christianity. Roman polytheism was a collection of devotions to local deities. It was not linked to morality, and meaning like we associate religions today. Polytheism is extraordinarily diverse and complex, in very different ways than monotheism. All monotheist faiths like christianity and islam intrinsically believe in the same god because of the nature of monotheism itself.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

I hate being impolite but I think it is good to help you on history jargon, I think you mean the bible is not a historical primary source for the life of Jesus. It is of course our primary source on our knowledge of his life. The second leap I have to call you out on is how you go for saying the bible is a secondary source to there is no historical proof he existed. As much I appreciate the link here my knowledge of the literature would reach a bit deeper than that post. But why dont you explain for us why there is no proof ?

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Show the evidence.
What evidence exists outside of the Bible either documentary or archaeological?
Show non-biblical evidence of the lives and deaths of the apostles
.
I should warn you that any sites you link to will need to have proper academic credentials.

As for the reasons 11 apostles died - in your opinion - people suffer violent deaths for things they don't believe in so that in an of itself proves nothing.
Millions of them in the case of wars.

Did millions die in wars by choice? I think normally the millions who died for fascism, communism and liberal states did who on the basis of genuine belief in the values of their respective state. Would people do the same, dying horrible deaths for the sake of literary fiction?
How on earth do you expect there to be archaeological evidence? Are you aware of how few have been identified using archaeology that early on? The romans were executing people by crucifixion for a thousands years but despite that we only have a single heel bone. Instead we use literary evidence and it is is relatively strong.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

T


I hate being impolite but I think it is good to help you on history jargon, I think you mean the bible is not a historical primary source for the life of Jesus. It is of course our primary source on our knowledge of his life. The second leap I have to call you out on is how you go for saying the bible is a secondary source to there is no historical proof he existed. As much I appreciate the link here my knowledge of the literature would reach a bit deeper than that post. But why dont you explain for us why there is no proof ?

And I am sorry to inform you that I am rather familiar with history jargon and I know exactly what I mean.

The Bible is not a primary source for Jesus as it is neither contemporary or written by anyone who personally knew him, or were contemporaries of him.

It was written after the fact by people who got their information from other people - therefore it is a secondary source.

There are no documents from c 1 - c 33 CE that mention Jesus. None. Zero.
Therefore there are no primary sources for him.

I notice you are claiming extensive knowledge (granted of literature which is a completely different academic discipline), well I have extensive, extensive knowledge in the discipline of history - not that such a thing is needed to distinguish a primary from a secondary source - not even when it's a very complicated matter like The Annals of the Four Masters which is both depending on the year entries were written. It's Freshers level stuff tbh.


So, as the post I linked to you is apparently far below your knowledge level why don't you critique it for us?

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Did millions die in wars by choice? I think normally the millions who died for fascism, communism and liberal states did who on the basis of genuine belief in the values of their respective state. Would people do the same, dying horrible deaths for the sake of literary fiction?
How on earth do you expect there to be archaeological evidence? Are you aware of how few have been identified using archaeology that early on? The romans were executing people by crucifixion for a thousands years but despite that we only have a single heel bone. Instead we use literary evidence and it is is relatively strong.

Some did yes - the ones who enlisted. My own great grand uncle was one. Died in 1918 because he believed in the freedom of small nations.

People died violent deaths for not following the party line when it comes to the Bible so I really wouldn't be using that as an example. The Spanish Inquisition alone killed thousands. Mary Tudor had 300 people burned alive for interpreting a book differently to the way Rome did.

Someone else claimed there was archeological evidence btw - I disputed it. But having said that - archeology has found evidence for events far older than 2000 years ago.
Plus extensive work has been done on Masada, amazing finds were made, and restoration work undertaken. This on a site where Jewish rebels expelled a Roman garrison a mere 30 odd years after the alleged death of Jesus.

The archeology also conflicts in many details with Josephus' account of the siege so much shown that his account is considered fairly inaccurate. Even though Josephus's writings on the First Jewish War are primary sources as he was alive and a participant - albeit based in Gaul.

Josephus is the 'main' non-Biblical source for Jesus - but he was not a contemporary so his writing are secondary sources at best. I say at best as many scholars believe the references to Jesus were later additions.

And no, in historical terms 'literary evidence' is not strong. It isn't even that much of a thing. All written evidence is either primary or secondary. That's it. There is no 'interesting story' category.

Fourier

To be honest this thread just shows how silly the debating techniques of the very religious are.

Speaking about Christianity as one among many religions, e.g "the Christian religion", rather than just being factual is a "debating trick".
That there existed religious scientists is proof of something even though there were religious scientists of several faiths, e.g. Abdus Salam was Muslim and Sinichiro Tomonaga believed in the Kami of Japan.
Telling a historian what a primary resource is. And so on.

For others I don't think there is anything to be gained from arguing with people like this as no reason is being employed. These are mistakes of reasoning that many ten year olds can be convinced out of in a few minutes. To me it's like debating the pub eijitt for ten hours about Global Warming because he thinks it's a "load of ****e" made up by RTÉ.

oldrnwisr

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

What strong historical basis do you think the historicity of the life of Jesus has exactly?

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

First, there really isn't any primary evidence for Jesus, either inside or outside the Bible. The only archaeological evidence is evidence for the background facts of the story, i.e. Pontius Pilate, Jerusalem etc. But as I've explained on another thread, the existence of Jerusalem or Pontius Pilate does not corroborate the gospel stories. Because there's a New York doesn't mean that there's a Spiderman.

Second, the evidence for Jesus outside the Bible is thin on the ground, at best. The earliest reliable extra-biblical source to mention Christianity isn't until Pliny in 115CE. And this source shows just how limited the impact of Christianity had been by then.


Now, as for the apostles.

The idea that the apostles died violent, martyr's deaths is either a) not evidently true or b) evidently not true depending on which apostle you're talking about. I've laid out the reasons in detail before but repeated them below.
The first problem is that there isn't a consistent list of 12 disciples. They change from gospel to gospel. To illustrate this I have arranged them in table below:

Mark | Matthew | Luke| John | Acts
Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter | Peter
James, son of Zebedee | James, son of Zebedee | James | The sons of Zebedee | James
John, brother of James | John, brother of James | John | | John
Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew | Andrew
Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip | Philip
Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Bartholomew | Nathanael
Matthew | Matthew | Matthew | | Matthew
Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas | Thomas
James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | James, son of Alphaeus | | James, son of Alphaeus
Thaddeus | Thaddeus | Judas, son of James | Judas "not Iscariot" | Judas, son of James
Simon | Simon | Simon | | Simon
Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot | Judas Iscariot

So, already we see there are discrepancies.

1. The introduction of a second Judas, the son of James by the author of Luke-Acts, not mentioned by either Mark or Matthew but mentioned by John.
2. The introduction of Nathanael by John, not mentioned by any other source.
3. The omission of Matthew, James, son of Alphaeus and Simon by John.

If the biographical sources for Jesus and the apostles can't even agree on a coherent list of twelve, this doesn't bode well for your argument that 11 out of 12 of them died violent deaths.

In the interests of moving this debate forward, however, I propose the following composite list:

1. Peter (Simon Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James, son of Zebedee
4. John, brother of James
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew/Nathanael, son of Talemai
7. Matthew
8. Thomas
9. James (James the Less, James the Just), son of Alphaeus
10. Thaddeus/Lebbaeus/Jude
11. Simon the Zealot/Cananean (Simeon of Jerusalem)
12. Judas Iscariot (replaced by Matthias)

So now that we know who we're talking about, the question is what happened to them? Can we actually be sure that any of them died martyr's deaths? To be clear, according to the apologetic argument the criterion for a martyr's death is to willingly die for their beliefs even when presented with the opportunity to recant.


Peter
Peter according to tradition was crucified in Rome. He was also crucified upside-down so as not to die in the same manner of Jesus. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that prisoners were rarely, if ever, accorded the privilege of choosing their method of execution, let's examine the textual evidence. The bulk of the traditional account of the martyrdom of St. Peter comes from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, an account dismissed as unreliable by historian Eusebius (who isn't exactly reliable himself). Other than that we have early Christian scholars such as Origen and Tertullian describing the method of Peter's death but not the origins. These accounts, however, are a century after the fact and not entirely reliable.

Andrew
According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on a saltire (an x-shaped cross) so as not to die in the same manner as Jesus. However, the source for this tradition is the Acts of Andrew (a work authored sometime between 150 and 200 CE). However, even early Biblical scholars such as Eusebius considered the Acts of Andrew to be unreliable. Modern Biblical scholars such as Francis Dvornik have also questioned the authenticity of Acts of Andrew. We, therefore, don't have any reliable information as to how Andrew died and cannot suggest that he was a martyr.

James, son of Zebedee
James is one of the few apostles who is listed as being killed in the Bible. According to Acts 12:1-3, Herod killed James with a sword. There is nothing in Acts to suggest that this death is anything other than a murder. Clement of Alexandria wrote that James was tried and executed as a martyr but since he was born 106 years after James' death, this account is unreliable.

John
John, even according to Christian tradition, is not considered to be a martyr. He is reported to have died in 100CE of old age.

Philip
Like Andrew, the only suggestion of the martyrdom of Philip is in a later work called the Acts of Philip (dated to the mid-to-late 4th century). However, like John, Catholic tradition holds that Philip was not martyred (or at least that his fate was unknown). The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia describes the Acts of Philip as a "tissue of fables".

Bartholomew
One of the more interesting apostle stories out there. There are many different stories surrounding Bartholomew's fate. One account suggests that he was crucified in Armenia, while another suggests he was beheaded in India. No writings of Bartholomew's fate exist prior to Eusebius and thus there is no reliable account of Bartholomew's death.

Matthew
The accounts of Matthew's fate are even more varied and unreliable than Bartholomew's. Most Christian scholars agree that the fate of Matthew is unknown. The Christian History Institute concludes that "we have nothing but legend about Matthew's death" while Catholic Online states that "nothing definite is known about his later life". Some sources in fact suggest that Matthew died a natural death.

Thomas
Some accounts including the apocryphal Acts of Thomas describe Thomas as having preached in India where he was stabbed to death with a spear. However, Eusebius dismisses the Acts of Thomas as unreliable. Furthermore, modern Catholic consensus holds that "it is difficult to discover any adequate support" to support the death of Thomas in India.

James the Less
The question to answer here is which James are we talking about. James is mentioned differently in different texts. James is identified by some sources with James, brother of Jesus, a tradition not held by Eastern Orthodox churches. This is unlikely since, according to John 7:5

"Even his own brothers didn't believe him."

Some accounts place his death in Egypt as a result of crucifixion while Josephus mentions that James was stoned by Pharisees (more on that later). There are numerous conflicting stories with no evidence to tip the balance in favour of any of them.

Thaddeus
Again it is difficult to know to what real person any of the stories refer. This apostle is named differently in Luke's Gospel than he is in Matthew's. Some accounts report that he was crucified in Armenia with Simon while others describe him being clubbed to death and others still say that he died of natural causes. However, none of these accounts have any corroborating textual evidence to support them and hence we know nothing of the fate of Thaddeus.

Simon the Zealot
No detail of the many conflicting reports of Simon's death seem to agree. His place of death has been reported as Persia, Edessa, Samria, Iberia, Colchis or even Britain. Some reports describe him being crucified while others say he was sawn in half. The source of this uncertainty is again an identity issue with Simon the Zealot being identified with other early Christian figures including Simeon of Jerusalem.

Judas Iscariot
It's nice to finish on an easy one. Judas' death is told twice in the New Testament such that both cannot be true or compatible. In Matthew 27:3-8 we are told that Judas, filled with remorse, gave back the 30 pieces of silver to the Pharisees whereupon he hanged himself. In Acts 1:18-19 Judas, takes the 30 pieces of silver and buys a potter's field and while walking across it:

"and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"

So, even if we were able to resolve the contradiction in favour of Matthew's account or the one in Acts, neither story would count as a martyr's death.


As far as the apostles go, the only apostle that could even charitably be described as a martyr is Peter. The rest of the apostles were not deemed important enough to merit anything other than passing mentions in history. Even so, if we accept that Peter was crucified (and I'm not suggesting that we do) we only have descriptions of Peter's death. There are a multitude of questions remaining. In particular one question stands out: Did the authorities offer Peter a chance to recant? If Peter, or any of the other apostles for that matter died in circumstances where recanting would have saved them then that would speak to martyrdom but we have no evidence of any such incident.

In conclusion, we don't know how any of the apostles died, and as such cannot say that they died for their beliefs. Without martyrdom, we don't know how the apostles viewed their beliefs, false or otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo

pearcider wrote: »

I haven’t made it up.

I am not saying you personally. I mean the entire cohort of theists as a whole, of which you appear to be a part.

pearcider wrote: »

But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

Ah theists imagining atheists dead or dying again. The mask slips once again.

"By their fruits you shall know them" indeed. One of the best lines in the Bible. A shame it is a line that shows theists for what they really are, more often than it shows them to be what they wish to pretend to be.

However I have no interest in the death cult that is represented by things like Christianity. I am someone who celebrates life and living, because there is no evidence we have anything BUT this life to cherish.

So I will subscribe to philosophies related to life and living, which is most of what I do. Death and dying will be a relatively short and meaningless period of my life. Selecting philosophies obsessed with that therefore is less relevant to me.

It is theism obsessed with death and dying and, seemingly, having ones enemies dead or dying as you show above. The rest of us are happy to get on with life and living. Try it sometime. You might find you like it.

As for "meaningless philosophies" if you want to address and rebut a philosophy I actually hold then by all meant (attempt to) do so. But meaningless throw away snidery like yours above say precisely nothing about anything, let alone about me or my positions on philosophy.

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths.

That is mere human hubris from you though. The feeling that we are so great, that if we find something we can not observe or explain it MUST be "supernatural" because how else would our great and wonderful intellects not be able to discern it.

It is a nonsense position but one that even seemingly great minds like Newton were not immune to.

The reality is however that we are a simple creature, barely different from the animals that we share common ancestry with, and the fact the universe is a mystery to us is a testiment not to our greatness or the universes greatness, but to our limitations.

pearcider wrote: »

Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

Sure but as the boy grows out of his immaturity the ocean is there to explore, and he can move to discover more about it and throw off childish stories and fairy tales about the ocean being magic. Our species needs to do the same and when you face the great mysteries that lie before us in the ocean that is our universe.... your fairy tales about it being magic with a magical sky wizard behind it will serve us no useful purpose.

Take the training wheels off the bike, you can cycle without them now.

nozzferrahhtoo

one world order wrote: »

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also.

Which oldrnwisr engaged you on and you, if I recall and am not mistaking you for another posted which is also possible, have since retreated from that conversation. I am happy to see above that he has returned to school you further on the issue. I hope you have the confidence in your positions to actually engage this time.

one world order wrote: »

11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

And many Muslim suicide bombers suffer explosive deaths for their belief too. That does not mean Islam is the true religion.

People giving their life for a religion is not a testament that that religion is true. It is just a Testament to the power of belief and THINKING that that religion is true. There are parents in the US right now who watch their own children die of easily manageable medical conditions solely because they BELIEVE it is what god wants.

Their deaths are evidence they believed their religion. Not evidence the religion itself is true.

As for archaeological evidence, you would have to be clearer on what you mean there. You do realise that if historians 5000 years from now dig up a book about Jason Bourne, there will also be a WEALTH of archaeological evidence supporting his existence too.

Why?

Well quite simply because many of the people, places, events and more mentioned in those books actually do/did exist. Fiction is OFTEN written against the background of real world places, people and events. So if you wish to appeal to archaeological evidence that supports your claims, you would have to show it DIRECTLY supports your claims, and is not merely congruent.

storker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I notice you are claiming extensive knowledge (granted of literature which is a completely different academic discipline), well I have extensive, extensive knowledge in the discipline of history - not that such a thing is needed to distinguish a primary from a secondary source -

Correct. My daughter covered this as part of her Junior Cert history syllabus. Hardly arcane knowledge...

There are no documents from c 1 - c 33 CE that mention Jesus. None. Zero. Therefore there are no primary sources for him.

I thought he'd got a mention from Suetonius, although that would still be a secondary source, it would be some sort of corroboration of the Bible's claim that Jesus existed in the sense that some guy lived in Palestine who had a bit of a following and was killed because he was seen as a troublemaker. Of course even if we accept that we're still left with unverified nature of the extraordinary claims made for him - and these are really the point. We know for sure that David Icke exists, but that doesn't prove his claims either.

Zubeneschamali

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar.

I used to say that I was once religious in that I believed in God in the way you describe.

But I am increasingly of the opinion that a simple belief that God's existence is a fact is not always a religious belief. My belief in God was like my belief in Australia, not religious at all.

When I came to examine it, I realized it was simply wrong, and I moved on without any existential angst.

Perhaps it only becomes a religious belief if you examine it, realize it is wrong and then decide to believe it anyway.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They don't apply equally because Roman polytheism was entirely different to monotheism faiths like Christianity. Roman polytheism was a collection of devotions to local deities. It was not linked to morality, and meaning like we associate religions today. Polytheism is extraordinarily diverse and complex, in very different ways than monotheism. All monotheist faiths like christianity and islam intrinsically believe in the same god because of the nature of monotheism itself.

You're missing and overcomplicating a much more simple and fundamental point. The Roman/Greek/Viking/Lovecraftian gods are 100% comparable in that their existence has been proven to the same degree. That it's not possible to do a detailed like-for-like comparison of the make-up of the different mythologies or of how they related to the day-to-day lives of their believers is interesting, but irrelevant to this discussion.

Fourier

As a side issue, because I'm sometimes not sure how to describe certain parts of the world, what is the precise meaning of supernatural?

If it means "outside the laws of nature" then there are parts of nature without laws, but surely we still wouldn't call them supernatural. I've never been clear what these terms mean and how we should use them.

EDIT: Basically the normal definition of supernatural relies too much on an idealised notion of nature that turns out to be false. However that doesn't change the spirit of what we mean when we say there is no supernatural so I'm looking for a more neutral definition.

oldrnwisr

storker wrote: »

I thought he'd got a mention from Suetonius, although that would still be a secondary source, it would be some sort of corroboration of the Bible's claim that Jesus existed in the sense that some guy lived in Palestine who had a bit of a following and was killed because he was seen as a troublemaker. Of course even if we accept that we're still left with unverified nature of the extraordinary claims made for him - and these are really the point. We know for sure that David Icke exists, but that doesn't prove his claims either.

Meh, the "mention" of Jesus in Suetonius isn't what Christians would like it to be.



There are two references in Suetonius cited by apologists as references to Jesus. Both come from Suetonius' Life of the Caesars. In Claudius 25, Suetonius comments:

"Since the Jews constantly make disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome."

This isn't exactly strong evidence to begin with and it is complicated by a number of problems.

First, the name mentioned is Chrestus not Christus and the Christian argument depends on Suetonius misspelling the name Christus as Chrestus. However, Chrestus was a common name in Rome, appearing in over 80 inscriptions from the period (as evidenced by Kurt Linck in De antiquissimis veterum quae ad Jesum Nazarenum spectant testimoniis). It was a common given name, especially among slaves, deriving from the Greek Chrestos, meaning good.

Second, the implication from the grammar of the passage is that this instigator was alive when these disturbances were being carried out, which would not fit with the Biblical narrative, Jesus having died almost 10 years before Claudius became emperor.
Finally, it mentions the group who were expelled as Jews, not Christians.



The second reference in Suetonius merely references Christians and not Jesus:


"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."


There's nothing much to see here. The passage in question comes in the middle of a commentary by Suetonius on the edicts passed by Nero banning chariot races and pantomime shows. Saying that there were Christians is not really the same as saying there was a Jesus. And besides these references come in 121CE, a half century after the first gospel and 70 years after Paul's first writings, so its hardly revelatory stuff. In fact, that Christians only warrant such passing references this far into the second century shows the lack of impact and slow growth of the religion by this point and not the overnight, runaway success that Christians have claimed.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

It was a common given name, especially among slaves, deriving from the Greek Chrestos, meaning good.

Wasn't aware of the derivation of 'chrestos' - thanks. The usual Ancient Greek words for 'good' were ἀγαθος (pr, agathos) hence the English name 'Agatha', and καλος, primary meaning 'beautiful', hence calisthenics - beauty through strength.

Chrestos in Greek is χρηστος - note the long 'e' - so it would have sounded like 'kraystos', a difference in vowel length and vowel sound, not just vowel sound as the English spelling would suggest. The sense of χρηστος also tended towards 'useful' or 'serviceable' - a hopeful name for a man born a slave, all things considered.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%2Fs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%2Fs0&prior=xrhsto/karpos

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As for archaeological evidence, you would have to be clearer on what you mean there. You do realise that if historians 5000 years from now dig up a book about Jason Bourne, there will also be a WEALTH of archaeological evidence supporting his existence too.

That reminds me of Barra O'Donnabhain (UCC Archeologist) and his 'Coca Cola People'.
In 2000 years artifacts baring the words 'coca cola' are found across the globe. All different kinds of artifacts. In all kinds of places, Artifacts which evolve and change in design and complexity. On some there are 'other languages' but all are undoubtedly 'Coca Cola' The point of origin (as in earliest appearance) seems to be the southern part of the North American continent.
The conclusion is a race of people - the Coca Cola People - spread out from there and conquered the world bringing their language and technology with them - as their empire expanded far beyond North America it began to acculturate and adapt to local conditions.

robindch

CramCycle wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

[...] posters are expected to arguments a little more solid than whatever material populates a first-year religious syllabus.

A bit harsh, I am sure there are several decent religious study courses out there.

Yes, there certainly are excellent courses out there created and delivered by people like Bart Ehrman who adopt a suitably critical approach to the accuracy, or otherwise, of biblical texts.

The brief point I had in mind with the above comment was that the current catholic-supporting syllabus for religion in Irish secondary schools includes things intended to support, but never undermine, the general christian understanding of history - stuff like the portentously titled 'Testimonium Flavianum', the short, strange passage in Josephus which is included to support the idea of a 'historical Jesus', while carefully leaving out any reference to the academic research which plausibly suggests that the passage is a later addition by some anonymous, presumably christian, copyist.

CramCycle wrote: »

Specifically, instead of telling your fellow-posters what they believe or don't believe, you might enquire - profitably it appears - as to what their beliefs actually are.If you don't get it - why not ask somebody to explain it then? Plenty of atheists find it quite funny and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain why.

A flaw of the human condition is that most of us find it hard to see something in others that is not present in ourselves. hence why many religious people have a hard time believing that many athiests do not have a religious belief in any way shape or form.

Indeed. And to add to that point, many christians seem to believe that their moral sense derives from their religion, and seem to believe that the absence of religion in other people means that they have no moral compass. A distressingly common piece of really, really lousy logic.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%2Fs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%2Fs0&prior=xrhsto/karpos

Forgot to say - in the Perseus online dictionary, to see the full definition, you've to click on one of the the links following the 'Show lexicon entry in...' - "LSJ" provides the full definition from Liddell and Scott's monumental 'A Greek-English Lexicon' which is the standard reference dictionary for Ancient Greek, while 'Middle Liddell' provides a shorter definition from Liddell's 'Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon'.

Interesting historical note - the lexicons' industrious editor, Henry George Liddell, was the father of Alice Liddell, the Alice of Alice in Wonderland fame.

Fourier

robindch wrote: »

Forgot to say - in the Perseus online dictionary, to see the full definition, you've to click on one of the the links following the 'Show lexicon entry in...' - "LSJ" provides the full definition from Liddell and Scott's monumental 'A Greek-English Lexicon' which is the standard reference dictionary for Ancient Greek, while 'Middle Liddell' provides a shorter definition from Liddell's 'Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon'.

Interesting historical note - the lexicons' industrious editor, Henry George Liddell, was the father of Alice Liddell, the Alice of Alice in Wonderland fame.

This has nothing to do with the thread but can you read Ancient Greek. Always wanted to learn it. If so was there any good book you used and did you learn Attic or Epic first or just Koine?

CramCycle

robindch wrote: »

And to add to that point, many christians seem to believe that their moral sense derives from their religion, and seem to believe that the absence of religion in other people means that they have no moral compass. A distressingly common piece of really, really lousy logic.

I always find this worrying, it suggests that if the person talking did not have religion they would have no morals. This, to me, is the trait of some sort of Sociopath, that needs guidelines to follow to fit in morally with the rest of the world.

Hotblack Desiato

pearcider wrote: »

I haven’t made it up. The Bible is there. But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

Ah, the old deathbed conversion myth again...

What reason is there to believe that anything in the bible is true? We know much of it to be false, and much else to have been written decades after the events described by people relying on hearsay, then very selectively edited later still.

So, apart from the circular "it's true because it says it is" argument, do you have anything at all to go on?

Yes many things in life are still a mystery to us, but that is no reason to pick any particular unsubstantiated explanation over any other. This is why atheists often refer to the thousands of gods that you don't happen to believe in, and what your basis for rejecting those gods is when your own god fails the same tests.

storker

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah, the old deathbed conversion myth again...

It illustrates the gulf that exist between how atheists think and how believers who use this as an argument think. They imagine they're scoring some kind of point, but even if an atheist loses his nerve on his deathbed it still proves nothing - just that the atheist sought some last-minute comfort in the beliefs he formerly rejected. This says nothing, however, about the veracity of those beliefs.

I like the story of Voltaire on his deathbed who, when asked to renounce the devil, is said to have replied that this was no time to be making enemies.

Bannasidhe

CramCycle wrote: »

I always find this worrying, it suggests that if the person talking did not have religion they would have no morals. This, to me, is the trait of some sort of Sociopath, that needs guidelines to follow to fit in morally with the rest of the world.

I must admit I feel a compulsion to socially distance myself from anyone who believes only religion is stopping people from running rampage.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

many christians seem to believe that their moral sense derives from their religion, and seem to believe that the absence of religion in other people means that they have no moral compass. A distressingly common piece of really, really lousy logic.

While I'd agree that many Christians do take this tack, I'd say they're a minority in this country and a shrinking one at that. The long list of abuses by the church and their many cover ups has really come home to roost at this point. As a result, the pontifications from priests in pulpits are being taken with a large grain of salt by those who even bother to continue to attend church on a regular basis. Additionally, I think the influx of right wing conservative evangelism in this country is something of an anathema to Irish Catholicism which is more of a working class tradition.

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

Wasn't aware of the derivation of 'chrestos' - thanks. The usual Ancient Greek words for 'good' were ἀγαθος (pr, agathos) hence the English name 'Agatha', and καλος, primary meaning 'beautiful', hence calisthenics - beauty through strength.

Chrestos in Greek is χρηστος - note the long 'e' - so it would have sounded like 'kraystos', a difference in vowel length and vowel sound, not just vowel sound as the English spelling would suggest. The sense of χρηστος also tended towards 'useful' or 'serviceable' - a hopeful name for a man born a slave, all things considered.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=xrhsto%2Fs&la=greek&can=xrhsto%2Fs0&prior=xrhsto/karpos

You are right about Chrestos in that useful is a more accurate translation. Indeed, some of the more careful scholars point this out. However, most commentators who mention the original Greek derivation cite Chrestos as "good or useful" with some scholars just referencing it as good. I suspect that as Chrestos became Chrestus the meaning of the name became more generic from useful to just good.

robindch wrote: »

The brief point I had in mind with the above comment was that the current catholic-supporting syllabus for religion in Irish secondary schools includes things intended to support, but never undermine, the general christian understanding of history - stuff like the portentously titled 'Testimonium Flavianum', the short, strange passage in Josephus which is included to support the idea of a 'historical Jesus', while carefully leaving out any reference to the academic research which plausibly suggests that the passage is a later addition by some anonymous, presumably christian, copyist.

Just a minor nitpick here. While the copyist who added the Testimonium is generally regarded as anonymous, the fact that a) Eusebius is the first Christian writer to mention the Testimonium, b) Eusebius inherited his copy of Josephus from Origen who doesn't even mention the Testimonium and c) Eusebius has a dismal reputation for dishonesty even among ancient scholars, would seem to point the finger of suspicion squarely at Eusebius for this later interpolation.

Marhay70

[QUOTE=robindch;113553365 And to add to that point, many christians seem to believe that their moral sense derives from their religion, and seem to believe that the absence of religion in other people means that they have no moral compass. A distressingly common piece of really, really lousy logic.[/QUOTE]

In this respect I am reminded of a documentary I saw a couple of years ago. It was about the first full encounter by outsiders with a tribe of indigenous people in Papua New Guinea. I was struck by the absolute humanity of these people, their love of nature and the environment and their respect for their fellow man.
One thing that particularly stood out was that the area was in swampland, densely populated by crocodiles. Many people had had family members killed by these crocodiles as earning their livelihood entailed venturing into the swamps to hunt for food but they bore absolutely no animosity or hatred toward the creatures, recognising that they too were just trying to live their lives and that they, on occasion would be the predator, not the prey. They respected them, they feared them and they avoided them where possible but basically adopted a live and let live policy.
These people had never seen a book, let alone a bible, they didn't beat their women or molest their children. They had a moral code which was in line with the natural order, their "God" was all around them, they gave thanks to it they revered it, they understood that it was bountiful only if you nurtured it so they took what they needed and no more.
Like billions of people today and through time, these people had no knowledge of the Abrahamic God or Jesus or Mohammed, they needed no Eucharistic stimulus or Ramadan to fulfil their purpose in life, they had no book to tell them what was good or evil, the results of their actions was enough for that.
Sitting on my comfortable couch watching my 4K Tv I was tempted to ask, " Who is better off?"

robindch

Fourier wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the thread but can you read Ancient Greek. Always wanted to learn it. If so was there any good book you used and did you learn Attic or Epic first or just Koine?

Read, yes; understand, rather less unfortunately as much of what I knew has slipped away owing to lack of use - one doesn't meet scholars of Ancient Greek, or indeed ancient Greeks themselves, with anything like the frequency one used to.

We used the JACT 'Reading Greek' course, first edition published by CUP in the late 1970's. A second edition was produced about ten years back and that's still available in what seems to be seven books, of which the main ones are [url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reading-Greek-Association-Classical-Teachers/dp/0521698510[/url]Texts and Vocabulary[/url] and [url=https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reading-Greek-Association-Classical-Teachers/dp/0521698529[/url]Grammar and Exercises[/url] which, somewhat oddly, are intended to be used in parallel.

There's also a new and more modern-looking set of two books Greek to GCSE, Part 1 and Greek to GCSE, Part 2 which seems to be a much more gentle introduction to the language, and since it looks like it's recommended by the same people who put together RG, it's probably the better choice of the two options. Reading Greek really threw you in at the deep end - almost literally, since the opening story famously recounted an attempted insurance fraud on a Greek ship.

All of these books cover Classical Greek which is largely Attic Greek, though blended with the Ionic, Doric dialects etc - these will get you going in the authors of the Classical Age - Plato, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Herodotus and so on. The earlier Epic Greek in which Homer, and later show-offs, wrote is archaic in comparison with Classical Greek and, personally, I found it difficult. The subsequent Hellenistic Greek which includes the Koine dialect in which the NT is written simpler than Classical Greek and I do recall reading the NT in parallel texts - Greek on one side, the Septuagint Latin text on the other - without difficulty.

As regards whether it's worth the effort - I'd say yes - the language is beautiful and the texts which become accessible are quite remarkable and unlike the Romans, whose authors tended towards the wooden and the militaristic, the Greeks were witty and deeply smart. Being able to compare the native forms of the NT and the earlier Greek philosophers upon which much of the NT's pseudo-philosophical and other bases rest is instructive too - the NT's prose is lame, simplistic, unfunny and unreflective in comparison to the average Classical Greek text, and nowhere more so than when comparing the accounts of the death of Jesus with Plato's far more profound, playful and moving account of the death of Socrates. Hearing religious people rhapsodize about the literary and other wonders of the bible prompts one to wonder whether they've ever tried to read any other books, let alone anything approximately contemporaneous with the bible.

I could go on and on, so best to stop here!

Fourier

Wow! Thanks for such a detailed response!

I actually know a Christian theologian who told me Mark was flat out badly written and ungrammatical in places and that the author didn't really have a good handle on Greek.

I've been learning Modern, but I'm tempted to do a bit on the Ancient side as well.

Thanks again.

Peregrinus

Fourier wrote: »

I actually know a Christian theologian who told me Mark was flat out badly written and ungrammatical in places and that the author didn't really have a good handle on Greek.

By all accounts, Mark clearly wasn't a native speaker of Greek. Matthew, by contrast, writes elegant Greek but is clearly not familiar with the geography of Palestine.

Fourier

Peregrinus wrote: »

By all accounts, Mark clearly wasn't a native speaker of Greek. Matthew, by contrast, writes elegant Greek but is clearly not familiar with the geography of Palestine.

What's an example of Matthew being unfamiliar with the geography?

oldrnwisr

Fourier wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for such a detailed response!

I actually know a Christian theologian who told me Mark was flat out badly written and ungrammatical in places and that the author didn't really have a good handle on Greek.

I've been learning Modern, but I'm tempted to do a bit on the Ancient side as well.

Thanks again.

With all due respect to your theologian friend, he is wrong about Mark.


While Mark isn't a native Greek speaker evidenced by the amount of Latin loanwords used in Mark, the author of Mark's gospel is highly educated in Greek. The "badly written" aspect comes from Mark's deliberately folksy style of writing similar to Mark Twain's style in Huck Finn. Its vernacular style hides a deep understanding of Greek literature and writing.



Furthermore it is a complex narrative told from the perspective of an omniscient (e.g. Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane) 3rd person narrator. It employs sophisticated literary techniques like:

• dramatic irony (the reader is aware of who Jesus is long before any of the main characters)
• a cliffhanger ending (the original text ends at 16:8 before there is any confirmed resurrection)
• intercalation (a technique where a separate story is sandwiched in the middle of another story, often as a means to impart a theological message, e.g. Mark 2:1-12)
• foreshadowing (references to events which will happen after the story concludes, e.g. the "I will make you fish for people" reference in Mark 1:16-20 which references the apostles preaching after Jesus' death)
• suspense building (Mark often repeats a certain story element three times, increasing it's impact each time to heighten the drama of the story, e.g. in Mark 1:10-11, there are three reactions to Jesus' baptism, the heavens open, a spirit descends and a voice is heard. This is mirrored by three reactions to Jesus death in Mark 15:38-40, those of the centurion, the women and the ripping of the temple curtain)
• Parataxis (the idea of stringing together vignettes or otherwise only loosely connected stories into a themed group, e.g. there are five stories involving some kind of controversy or opponent of Jesus given together between 2:1 and 3:6. Also Mark tends to use the word "and" a lot to string everything together like a five year old with too much sugar. Two-thirds of the verses in the original greek text begin with "and")
• In medias res (opening your story in the middle of ongoing events. Unlike Matthew, Mark's story cold opens with the preaching of John the Baptist rather than beginning with a nativity. The Odyssey begins similarly by starting with Odysseus' journey home and only later recounting the events which lead up to the story's opening).

Now the fact that Mark could write at all was a wonder in itself. As William Harris points out in Ancient Literacy:

"The likely overall illiteracy of the Roman Empire under the principate is almost certain to have been above 90%"

In this region, at that time, only about 10% of people would have been educated enough to read. To write, those people would have been educated further still and to write a complex narrative of the type found in the gospel would have required advanced training. This training would have been much like the Junior and Leaving Cert cycle English programmes are today, with much emphasis on classic works and homework on comprehension and essay writing. So in the same way that a student now would practice their English by studying, reading and writing about Shakespeare, a student then would have done the same with Homer. Denis MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark points out that Mark employs allusion and reference to Homer's work throughout his gospel, demonstrating his education in Greek literature.



Mark tries to write his gospel in a way that he thinks a simple labourer like the apostles would have spoken. But the literary techniques and references he employs give the game away.

Peregrinus wrote: »

By all accounts, Mark clearly wasn't a native speaker of Greek. Matthew, by contrast, writes elegant Greek but is clearly not familiar with the geography of Palestine.

I wouldn't say that's entirely fair. While there are a lot of geographical mistakes in Matthew, they mostly originate with Mark. For example, in Matthew 19:1, Matthew repeats Mark's error from 10:1 by saying that Jesus left Galilee, crosses the Jordan and enters Judea. However, crossing to the east bank of the Jordan would mean leaving Judea and entering Perea.


However, there are some instances where Matthew does his best to correct, or at least mitigate, Mark's more heinous geographic errors, indicating at least some knowledge of Palestine. In Mark chapter 5, Jesus heals the Gerasene demoniac, exorcising a madman in "the land of the Gerasenes" (about 30km from the Sea of Galilee), before sending the demons into a herd of pigs that then run "down the hill" into the sea and are drowned. That would have to be one enormous hill to stretch 30km. In Matthew chapter 8 he retells the story, however he replaces Gerasenes with Gadarenes, reducing the error from 30km to 5km.



Matthew repeats this corrective process again in Matthew 21:1, correcting the error that Mark makes in Jesus travels from Jericho to Jerusalem via Bethphage and Bethany (Mark 10:46-11:11), deleting the reference to Bethany entirely.



Ultimately, if Matthew makes geographical errors, then Mark made them first. Its a bit unfair to talk about Matthew's unfamiliarity with Palestinian geography when Mark's mistakes are worse and more numerous. Even Luke shows a distinct lack of familiarity with Palestine as shown in Luke 4:44, when you compare it to Mark 1:39.

Peregrinus

Perhaps its unfair to say that he's "unfamiliar" with geography. Some of his geographical references are a bit odd, but he may be using them to make theological points.

For example, in Mark 3, after Jesus has angerd the Pharisees working cures on the Sabbath and they start to plot against him, he leaves town and retreats to the Sea of Galilee. Large crowds follow him, not only from Galilee but "from Jerusalem, from Idumea, from beyond the Jordan, and from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon". This is a ring of areas around Galilee.

But when Matthew retells this story, he omits Idumea, Tyre and Sidon and replaces them with Decapolis, and adds for good measure that Jesus's fame "spread to all of Syria". There's nothing coherent about this group of places. Matthew seems to convert Mark's list of the territories adjacent to Galilee into a random list of placenames with nothing obvious in common. It may be that Matthew is signalling that Jesus's fame spread to all kinds of places, near and far, in all directions, but that wouldn't explain why he supresses Mark's mention of Tyre and Sidon. The mention of Syria is particularly odd; it's his only mentions of Syria, and he doesn't seem to draw on any Syrian sources so, even if Jesus did have a following in Syria, how would Matthew even know about it?

Bannasidhe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now the fact that Mark could write at all was a wonder in itself. As William Harris points out in Ancient Literacy:

"The likely overall illiteracy of the Roman Empire under the principate is almost certain to have been above 90%"

In this region, at that time, only about 10% of people would have been educated enough to read. To write, those people would have been educated further still and to write a complex narrative of the type found in the gospel would have required advanced training. This training would have been much like the Junior and Leaving Cert cycle English programmes are today, with much emphasis on classic works and homework on comprehension and essay writing. So in the same way that a student now would practice their English by studying, reading and writing about Shakespeare, a student then would have done the same with Homer. Denis MacDonald in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark points out that Mark employs allusion and reference to Homer's work throughout his gospel, demonstrating his education in Greek literature.



.

Slight tangent but I thought I'd share as it was one of those 'ohhhhh' facts that always stuck with me.
Many decades ago I was lucky enough to study under the superb Jennifer O Reilly whose knowledge of iconography was unsurpassed.
One pitfall for the unwary was a point where Late Antiquity met The Middle Ages - how to tell if an image was from Antiquity or a Medieval 'harking back'.
One very simple way is whether the subject is holding a stylus (writing implement) or not.
Reading and writing were considered two separate and distinct skills during the Antique period. Reading was a sign of education, writing was manual labour - consequently, the educated dictated to lowly scribes who did the messy ink work.
If the subject of the image is holding a stylus it is Medieval.

So, (bringing it back to the discussion), the educated Mark could have dictated his narrative to a scribe - and given the time period quite possibly a Greek slave. Mark himself may not have been able to write.

oldrnwisr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps its unfair to say that he's "unfamiliar" with geography. Some of his geographical references are a bit odd, but he may be using them to make theological points.

For example, in Mark 3, after Jesus has angerd the Pharisees working cures on the Sabbath and they start to plot against him, he leaves town and retreats to the Sea of Galilee. Large crowds follow him, not only from Galilee but "from Jerusalem, from Idumea, from beyond the Jordan, and from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon". This is a ring of areas around Galilee.

But when Matthew retells this story, he omits Idumea, Tyre and Sidon and replaces them with Decapolis, and adds for good measure that Jesus's fame "spread to all of Syria". There's nothing coherent about this group of places. Matthew seems to convert Mark's list of the territories adjacent to Galilee into a random list of placenames with nothing obvious in common. It may be that Matthew is signalling that Jesus's fame spread to all kinds of places, near and far, in all directions, but that wouldn't explain why he supresses Mark's mention of Tyre and Sidon. The mention of Syria is particularly odd; it's his only mentions of Syria, and he doesn't seem to draw on any Syrian sources so, even if Jesus did have a following in Syria, how would Matthew even know about it?

Sorry, Peregrinus but I have to disagree with you here. I don't think Mark has any more coherent idea of Palestinian geography than Matthew. There's two main reasons for this.



First, when Mark mentions the crowds gathering in 3:8, he mentions Judea and Jerusalem separately for whatever reason (for those who don't know Jerusalem is in Judea)and also Idumea, Tyre and Sidon. He finally makes a vague reference to "beyond the Jordan". So the places he names are all west of the Jordan while everything east of the Jordan is lumped together as "beyond the Jordan". When Matthew repeats this part of the story in 4:24-25, he adds the Decapolis and Syria (even though Damascus is one of the cities of the Decapolis) as named places while omitting Tyre, Sidon and Idumea. He also retains Mark's use of "beyond the Jordan". So Matthew's focus or knowledge is more concentrated on those areas east of the Jordan and his use of "beyond the Jordan" may simply be an example of editorial fatigue.


Second, while Mark names all of these places, he demonstrates in later chapters that he has no idea how any of them relate to each other geographically. For example, in Mark 7:31 he states:

"Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis."


There are three problems here. First, the sea of Galilee is SE of Tyre while Sidon is North, so you can't go to the Sea of Galilee from Tyre through (in Greek dia) Sidon. Second, there was no road SE from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee. Finally, Mark describes the Sea of Galilee as being in the midst of the region of the Decapolis (meson ton horion), which is also incorrect since only two cities of the Decapolis even border the sea (Hippos and Gadara), so it can't really be in the midst of the Decapolis.


Beyond this Mark also confuses the locations of Bethphage and Bethany as mentioned earlier, Bethsaida and Gennesaret in Mark 6 and mentions 2 towns that nobody has ever heard of (Dalmanutha and Arimathea).



As I said in the previous post, there are examples where Matthew makes an attempt to correct Mark's more heinous geographical mistakes showing some very limited knowledge of Palestine whereas Mark's numerous errors show that his only real familiarity with Palestine is knowing the names of places but not where they are.



Finally, just two minor nitpicks.

When you say Matthew retells the story from Mark chapter 3, I feel I should point out that he actually splits the story in two. While Mark has the story of the healing of the man with the withered hand, followed immediately by the multitude by the seaside, Matthew splits this story in two, first telling the story of the multitude in chapter 4, followed by the withered hand story much later in chapter 12 (possibly to fit better within the chiastic structure of Matthew's overall narrative).

Second, when you say that Matthew's mention of Syria is odd and "how would Matthew know about it", the same could be said of a lot of things in Matthew's gospel. For example, the slaughter of the innocents, the opening of the graves and the Nazarene prophecy all appear in Matthew and nowhere else which prompts the question how did Matthew know about it. In the case of the narrative elements, the easiest explanation would be Matthew was just making **** up.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Slight tangent but I thought I'd share as it was one of those 'ohhhhh' facts that always stuck with me.
Many decades ago I was lucky enough to study under the superb Jennifer O Reilly whose knowledge of iconography was unsurpassed.
One pitfall for the unwary was a point where Late Antiquity met The Middle Ages - how to tell if an image was from Antiquity or a Medieval 'harking back'.
One very simple way is whether the subject is holding a stylus (writing implement) or not.
Reading and writing were considered two separate and distinct skills during the Antique period. Reading was a sign of education, writing was manual labour - consequently, the educated dictated to lowly scribes who did the messy ink work.
If the subject of the image is holding a stylus it is Medieval.

So, (bringing it back to the discussion), the educated Mark could have dictated his narrative to a scribe - and given the time period quite possibly a Greek slave. Mark himself may not have been able to write.

Thanks for that, thats a very interesting point and one which I hadn't previously considered. My understanding was that the schools in the first century of the type the gospel writers would have attended would have taught both reading and writing. Composing a narrative as complex as Mark's would have been difficult without the ability to make notes of your own, although that could just be coloured by my modern perspective.

Bannasidhe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thanks for that, thats a very interesting point and one which I hadn't previously considered. My understanding was that the schools in the first century of the type the gospel writers would have attended would have taught both reading and writing. Composing a narrative as complex as Mark's would have been difficult without the ability to make notes of your own, although that could just be coloured by my modern perspective.

The modern mind so conceives of reading and writing as being two components of the same skill set that it's nearly impossible for us to seperate them.
We are also so reliant on 'making notes' that we have allowed the skill of remembering to diminish. This is not to say that the educated of Antiquity could not write, but to say that their ability to remember may have been far greater than ours.
I know from my own thesis writing days I was dealing with so many documents I eventually gave up making notes as it was just another bloody document and became quite good at remembering where I had read what in relation to forming a point. A skill I have since lost...

Also consider that the 'Brehon Laws' were formulated and pretty much codified long before they were physically written down - Brehon scholars memorised complex and lengthy laws and then interpreted them, and the 'schools' in which this happened existed long before literacy was introduced to Ireland.

If the authors of the Gospels were educated men (and they would have been men) the probability is they would have dictated to scribes, and given the time period the likelihood is those slaves would have been Greek. Which could have informed the 'colloquial' Greek you referred to having been used.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the authors of the Gospels were educated men (and they would have been men) the probability is they would have dictated to scribes, and given the time period the likelihood is those slaves would have been Greek. Which could have informed the 'colloquial' Greek you referred to having been used.

A thought occurred to me on this *conjecture warning* - it may have been that 'Mark' chose to have his narrative in what he considered to be the language of 'the common man' to make it more accessible and may have learned it from listening to Greek slaves/scribes.

Similar to what Lady Gregory did when translating the Ulster Cycle, her Cuchulain of Muirthemne is written in what she called 'Kiltartanese' after her homeplace. She employed the local English dialect which contained a lot of Gaelic syntax in an effort to reach a wider audience. Gregory herself would have had an 'Ascendency' accent and may have felt if she wrote in this it would not be 'true' to the material and/or alienate her audience.

Some like it but personally I find it patronising and fairly annoying tbh, but then I am not the audience it was aimed at.

Fourier

I know very little about this stuff, but I also was quite surprised that there was such a thing as "oral literacy", i.e. people who had memorised canonical texts that were spoken only. I know they mainly memorised a skeleton that they would flesh out themselves at each performance, thinking of Ireland, Wales, Greece and the Norse World here as I know little about other examples.

I remember reading that Cú Chulainn was probably part of his own mythic cycle and was brought into the Táin around the 7th or 8th century. The "pillow talk" part was brought in around the 9th I think. There's also influence from Roman stories in the writing style if I remember correctly.

Makes me wonder how the Iliad was built up.

Bannasidhe

Fourier wrote: »

I know very little about this stuff, but I also was quite surprised that there was such a thing as "oral literacy", i.e. people who had memorised canonical texts that were spoken only. I know they mainly memorised a skeleton that they would flesh out themselves at each performance, thinking of Ireland, Wales, Greece and the Norse World here as I know little about other examples.

I remember reading that Cú Chulainn was probably part of his own mythic cycle and was brought into the Táin around the 7th or 8th century. The "pillow talk" part was brought in around the 9th I think. There's also influence from Roman stories in the writing style if I remember correctly.

Makes me wonder how the Iliad was built up.

This is not my area (my familiarity is with the end of them as a legal code, not the beginning) but my understanding is the oral 'Brehon Laws' were far from being a skeleton that was fleshed out but a copious amount of laws, judgements, and precedents that were learned in their entirety. A task that took some 20 years. There were clans who were traditionally 'Brehons' and they ran schools - where they would provide all kinds of education. The Uí Dalaigh (Daly) and Mac Aodhagáin (Egan) being two if memory serves.
The were not 'stories' in the sense of sagas etc - these were the laws of the land and predate Christianity by, at some estimates, 2 millenia. 'Fleshing out' would have lead to societal instability and fatally undermined them as a legal code. Which obviously didn't happen as they survived up until the 17th century and then only ended by force of State violence.

They were eventually written down by Christian clerics - as the Táin was - and some of those clerics couldn't avoid trying to insert Christian Principles - not very successfully as it happens.

In the case of the Táin, the texts contain variations in style that strongly suggest they were a group effort, interestingly the difference in the attitude of the cleric writing is evident - one particular one is notably moralistic and has an ... attitude... about Meabh, others feel no need to moralise and simply tell the tale.

And all this is an example of memory as it is well over 20 years since I heard Donnchadh Ó Corráin forensically dissect The Ulster Cycle and point out the changes in style etc.

Fourier

This is not my area (my familiarity is with the end of them as a legal code, not the beginning) but my understanding is the oral 'Brehon Laws' were far from being a skeleton that was fleshed out but a copious amount of laws, judgements, and precedents that were learned in their entirety. A task that took some 20 years

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant Bards reciting stories at a Rí's court (or Skalds in Norse courts).

It's the book of Leinster version that has some sort of moralism about Méibh isn't it?

Bannasidhe

Fourier wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant Bards reciting stories at a Rí's court (or Skalds in Norse courts).

It's the book of Leinster version that has some sort of moralism about Méibh isn't it?

Ah - gotcha. I think Bards and Brehons are not the same thing.

As I understand it both were parts of the upper echelons of Gaelic society. Bards were directly employed by clans to extol their praises, and travelled around as - for want of a better word - as entertainers and general dispensers of news/gossip.

Brehons were legal scholars who advised the Rí (later the Chieftain as kings eventually became warlords) on the law. Keep in mind it was not a 'criminal' system but a 'civil' system based on compensation and there was a very complex system to work out who owed how much to whom.

If you are interested Kelly's Guide to Early Irish Law is very readable and quite fascinating in a 'they seem to have thought of every permutation' kind of way. Even the sanctions against a Bard who wrote an insulting poem is in there.

On where the monk disapproved of Meab I'm afraid that memory is long dead and not even an archeologist could find those lecture notes.

Fourier

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Actually I'm getting what I know from Kelly's book. He basically has it that there was a Rí and then beneath him nobles who were basically defined by holding vassals and having legal privileges. There were then three learned professions: Bard, Brehon, Historian. Although a Bard was the only one who seemed to belong to the same nobility "rank" as the kings and nobles. Historians and Brehons were in the lower nobility along with master craftsmen (daornemed). Lower being defined as "nobles who serve" in the sense that they had to be in the employ of another.

From reading papers it seems that today people think the Druid was once a fourth learned profession (some early law texts support this by having them in the daornemed). This is in contrast to older theories of Bards, Brehons, etc "evolving" out of druids.

Again I'm just repeating Kelly here, not an expert. I find it really cool how there are words that have different/shifted meanings from Modern Irish. Like fine, cine etc all had very precise meanings but are more vague now.

Fourier

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On where the monk disapproved of Meab I'm afraid that memory is long dead and not even an archeologist could find those lecture notes.

Méibh is one of my favourite characters in Irish myth. It's really interesting how there were several versions of her like "Méibh X" where X was a place. Sort of like "Athena Polias".

Bannasidhe

Fourier wrote: »

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Actually I'm getting what I know from Kelly's book. He basically has it that there was a Rí and then beneath him nobles who were basically defined by holding vassals and having legal privileges. There were then three learned professions: Bard, Brehon, Historian. Although a Bard was the only one who seemed to belong to the same nobility "rank" as the kings and nobles. Historians and Brehons were in the lower nobility along with master craftsmen (daornemed). Lower being defined as "nobles who serve" in the sense that they had to be in the employ of another.

From reading papers it seems that today people think the Druid was once a fourth learned profession (some early law texts support this by having them in the daornemed). This is contrast to older theories of Bards, Brehons, etc "evolving" out of druids.

Again I'm just repeating Kelly here, not an expert. I find it really cool how there are words that have different/shifted meanings from Modern Irish. Like fine, cine etc all had very precise meanings but are more vague now.

For a deeper examination Katherine Simms From Kings to Warlords can't be beaten but it's not an easy read. I finally succeeded by bringing it as my only book on a camping trip.
Gaelic Ireland wasn't a stagnant society so over time roles etc did change - Simms charts it.

More accessible is Ken Nicholls Gaelic and Gaelicized Ireland in the Middle Ages but it doesn't have the same level of detail.

Fourier

Jesus thanks! I'd never even heard of Simms's book! Ordered! Yeah Kelly is giving the 8th-9th and even then he says the law texts are presenting a simplified version of society to some degree.

Have you ever read Bernadette Cunningham's books on Keating and the Four Masters? I really enjoyed them.

Bannasidhe

Fourier wrote: »

Méibh is one of my favourite characters in Irish myth. It's really interesting how there were several versions of her like "Méibh X" where X was a place. Sort of like "Athena Polias".

My thesis was based around Gráinne Ní Mhaille and I found that the verifiable reality was far more interesting than the various myths - some of which are mad altogether. Like her skull could cure infertility (John O'Donovan recorded that one during his census work in the 1830s).
Her 'nickname' is also something that went through various versions but the likelihood is she was Gráinne of Umhall (Granuaile), which is where her sept of the Uí Máille lived, not Bald Gráinne (Gráinne Mhaol).
She had a great-aunt also named Granuaile so unless being follically challenged was a 'thing' among Uí Máille women...

Bannasidhe

Fourier wrote: »

Jesus thanks! I'd never even heard of Simms's book! Ordered! Yeah Kelly is giving the 8th-9th and even then he says the law texts are presenting a simplified version of society to some degree.

Have you ever read Bernadette Cunningham's books on Keating and the Four Masters? I really enjoyed them.

Yes I have, Cunningham is a fine scholar.

I decided in my infinite wisdom that in my thesis I would use the 'Irish' version of a person's name unless/until they Anglicised - it actually made sense as people were clearly identified in Irish texts due to the use of their nicknames but it was unclear in the English text who exactly they were talking about (which effing Richard Burke I would schriek - there's 14 of them!!!).

But I had to do this in an academically appropriate/acceptable way i.e. I needed a primary source to cite. So, I used the Annals of Loch Cé and the Annals of the Four Masters and used the first mention, in Irish, of whomever I was writing about. It was a major pain in the hole at first and I deeply regretted ever starting it but I have to admit it worked. It cut down the confusion as to who was who.

pearcider

CramCycle wrote: »

What a randomly unexplained statement, any chance you'd actually make a clarification rather than a statement.

And there is the crux of it, you can either take the unexplained as supernatural or you can take it as unexplained. I choose the latter.

Clarification. Jesus was the son of God who was a pacifist and was crucified by the authorities of the time for non violent crime of claiming to be the messiah and performing miracles in front of thousands of witnesses...and Mohammed was a warlord who married both a 6 year old and a rich widow and who directly killed thousands. In fact he had 11 wives. Islam spread by the sword and was only stopped from wiping out Christianity by people like Charles Martel.

You can’t just take the existence of yourself as unexplained. You need to believe that 1) the universe spontaneously decided to exist 2) non living matter spontaneously organised itself into life despite us having no evidence of how this could happen and 3) life organised itself into conscious beings like you and me by chance. You also must accept that concepts like beauty and mathematics are merely accidents of nature that ultimately have no meaning and were just invented in our brains and when we humans disappear then they will too...reframed like this it’s your meaningless atheism that becomes a bit of a farce and not my belief in a creator and in a universe with purpose. Materialism is dead. Deal with it.

Also people like Gauss and Newton were extremely devout Christians and yes their opinion carries a lot more weight than yours or any half bit scholar like Dawkins. These men were true geniuses, polymaths of the kind that don’t even exist any more and they were certain that Jesus was the real deal.

Peregrinus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My thesis was based around Gráinne Ní Mhaille and I found that the verifiable reality was far more interesting than the various myths - some of which are mad altogether. Like her skull could cure infertility (John O'Donovan recorded that one during his census work in the 1830s)....

I never knew that!

Was her [supposed] skull still around in the 1830s? It is still around now?