My Christmas was from the Gospel of Mark
I've read it is a common Christmas Eve and Christmas Day ritual for Americans to gather at Chinese restaurants. My family has gone to the same Chinese place for two Christmas Eves in a row.
Celebrating Christmas by dining Chinese is consistent with the Gospel of Mark. What does the author of Mark say about the virgin birth, wise men, shepherds, mangers and Joseph? Nothing. Could it be Mark says nothing because none of this ever happened? Or, could it be the author knew all about that story and thought people could read about it elsewhere?
One thing we can assume, it seems to me, is the author, or authors, of Mark thought it was important to write about specific topics of the faith. Jesus' birth was not important enough to be included.
The training to write and read was unusual at that time. And, of those few who could write, an even smaller number could have afforded the time required for the laborious task of writing. So, it seems significant that we have come to consider a most important story, the birth, was either not known or was so insignificant it was not mentioned.
The late Christopher Hitchens had a pithy summary of Christianity (and other religions), "One must state plainly. Religion comes from the period of human history when nobody had the smallest idea of what was going on."
The authors of the other three Gospels knew one thing Mark did not seem to get. People's moods improved when hours of darkness were replaced with hours of sun. If you want to write something people like to read, write about what makes them happy.
Mark's writing did nothing for Christians at Christmas. It did not help people celebrate Winter Solstice. But, it was great for Chinese restaurants.
you have claimed that Matthew was written some "decades" later than Mark. that's news to me: as far as I know, the Synoptics were all written at about the same time. the only outlier being John. what is your source for your "information" and what do you mean by decades? ten years, 20 years, 30 years? what?
ReplyDelete"as far as I know, the Synoptics were all written about the same time."
ReplyDeleteThey were written at different times. The book of John was written quite a bit later than the other three and at a location distant. This is all well know stuff.
of course they were not all written on the same day, but as far as I know, they were written by about 50AD. and yes, I said that John came later, about 80-90AD. again, your source?
ReplyDeleteJust for starters, "Evolution of the Word'" 2012 by former Concordia professor, the late Marcus J. Borg. He, of course, refers to many other scholars who have looked at this. As to the setting of the gospel authors, Bart D. Ehrman's college textbook, "The Bible" is textbook used in many introductory college courses on the Bible.
ReplyDeletethanks. And when do Borg and Bart say that the Synoptics were written. By 50AD, as I thought, or later?
ReplyDeleteThere are different theories. I don't have time to look up Borg or Bart again. I came across a site just now which lists them as Mark 60 CE, Matthew 90 CE, Luke 95 CE and John 110 CE.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your challenge, I decided to do a bit of research. (It's also good to know a little something about important historical issues, this one included.) Very briefly, here's what I learned: Mathew may have been written before Mark (tho' that's uncertain). The three synoptics were probably written well before the destruction of the temple in 70CE (assuming that if they had been written after that event, they would have given it great play, considering Christ's prophecy in that regard). That Luke, although probably not an eyewitness, probably got a lot of his information from Mary and other eyewitnesses. You will note my generous use of the word probably: appropriately so, inasmuch as the story is a very complicated one. My bet, for what it's worth (probably very little) is that most of the "writing down" was done before the church broke out of Jerusalem. In any event, I am somewhat flummoxed by your harping on the notion that the gospel writers mindlessly made up stories, copying from pagan myths or whatever. I know that this spin suits your atheist worldview. Nevertheless, I think that it's a real stretch: were those pagan stories even current in Palestine at the time. And why would the gospel writers have risked life and limb based on a story that they knew was fabricated? Again a real stretch. I could go on, but that's all I have for just now.
ReplyDeleteagain, a real stretch.
Your use of probably is good. The word "maybe" would be ok too. "..a real stretch those pagan stories were current in Palestine at the time." Then, I would ask, who were the "other gods" that were referred to frequently. They are in the Ten Commandments. And, "...risked life and limb for a story they knew was fabricated." In the Bible people lived visions and dreams were some form of reality. And if it was commonly believed you could not eat shell fish and lamb at the same meal why would those who wrote the Bible believe any differently. They would have believed the same myths as others. But they also may have believed, as many rich people do today, the "we rich people should control the poor people." So they wrote down the myths that helped them hold onto power. I like it you are looking up some stuff. But, I hope you will continue and include the celebrity skeptics like Ehrman. His book, "Forgery and Counter Forgery" makes the case there were all kinds of impostors and forgeries going on at the time. The Bible is just not something to take seriously in my view.
Deletemaybe there were good hygienic reasons for not mixing shell fish and lamb? More to the point, it seems that the Jews of the time were quite adamant when it came to mixing Helenistic religious ideas with the Jewish religion (e.g. the Maccabean wars). In any event, I think that scholars over the years would have found the forgeries that you think were so common then (as now). Besides I think that the gospel writers were good Jews, people not likely to buy into pagan myths. As to power, that seems to be your common denominator, an invocation to be used to explain (and discredit) just about everything.
ReplyDelete"the Jews were quite adamant when it came to mixing Helenistic religions.." That 1%, the wealthy, who wrote about religion were adamant. But why did they refer to other gods? It has to be there were other gods. Period. Those other gods obviously were a concern or they would not have condemned them. As to "...I think scholars over the years would have found the forgeries..." For goodness sake, man, they have. There are books about the forgeries. Look it up. Buy a reading list about forgeries during Biblical time. The writers during that time talked a lot about who was pretending to be who. Paul even alluded to it. I don't know what you mean by "discover". There is not one piece of the original writing of the Bible that survived. It is all recopied stuff recopied hundreds of times.
ReplyDeleteyes, of course, there were forgeries in the ancient world, the medieval world and the modern world. Quite a few of them, however, were eventually found out (e.g. pseudo- Dionysus, the Donation of Constantine, and so forth). Moreover, it is important to remember that all ancient documents have been copied and re-copied many times. Who knows what errors or even deliberate mistranslations may have crept in along the way. That said, I am not willing to concede that dishonesty or confusion have been so rampant as to justify your radical skepticism. If you are right, then we are truly up s--t creek without a paddle. But there is more. Ancient writers (and modern ones too)often allowed a clerk/scribe to write documents on an author's behalf, with attribution to the author. "I want to write a letter to John: you know what I want to say, write it up and sign my name..." Is this a risky procedure? yes. Is it forgery? no. At the end of the day, then, I have confidence in the work of scholars who have seriously studied ancient documents, coming to conclusions regarding their flaws, reliability and meaning.
ReplyDelete"That said, I am not willing to concede that dishonest or confusion have been so rampant as to justify your radical skepticism." My skepticism is "radical?" In Europe Christianity is polling as less than the majority. The "nones" who replay with no religious identification is larger than any single religious group.
ReplyDelete"Ancient writers (and modern ones too) often allowed a clerk/scribe to write documents on the writer's behalf." That is true. President Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal" was ghost written. The actual author is now apologizing. However, ancient authors themselves criticized fake authors--Ehrman carefully documents how often these complaints are in writing attributed to the time of the Bible authorship.
If you were to ask my advice, I would advise you to stay with the Catholic faith you seem to admire so much. If it helps you, do it. It has intellectual and historical holes in it so big a truck could pass though but that doesn't matter if you need the comfort of an imaginary afterlife.
nothing like a little anti-Catholic diatribe to settle an argument/difference of opinion. Charming.
ReplyDeleteI'm told I have radical skepticism. That's not a diatribe apparently. I advised you to stay with your Catholic faith. I'd advise the same to Protestants who think Catholicism is nuts. And to Hindus who think all brands of Christianity are nuts but find something in Hindu that helps them, stay with it.
Deleteyes, your skepticism-- as it relates to religion at least -- is simply, demonstrably radical, radical in the sense of going to the root of things, something pervasive, something deep down. if that's a diatribe, make the most of it. BTW, the Hindus think that Christians are nuts. so what?
ReplyDelete"BTW, the Hindus think the Christians are nuts. so what?"
ReplyDeleteTo Christians that is correct. They would not care. But for atheists all over the world, the disagreements about which god is real makes our point: Not one of them is real (so far as we can tell). Homer Simpson told is wife he would not go to church because it might piss off the real god. :)
and then again maybe they are all "real" in some important sense of that word. maybe the atheists are the ones with a problem. Happy New Year.
ReplyDeleteYou're right they are real to the people who believe they are real and that' important to them. It's important to the rest of us as well because some laws are based on what these real gods tell people. As Matt Noah has told us, "God hates abortion." Happy New Year to you as well.
Deleteyes, most certainly. real to those that believe in them. but beyond that how about real in the sense that believers in their various ways may be reaching out to an intelligence that exists above and beyond this universe. to which I am sure you would say Bah Humbug.
ReplyDeleteNot Bah Humbug. I would say it was I who reached out beyond the universe and am the authority on such matters. And, there is nothing there. Anyone can make claim about the unseen or untested. Since it is unseen we also cannot say it does not exist. The same for "miracles" in the Bible. No one claims they saw them.
ReplyDeleteThey could have happened. But, if we don't have some standards anyone can claim they are a god or that miracles happened and we just happened not to see them. And, we cannot said the Mormon guy did not talk with Jesus by himself as he claimed. Claims from la la land, like those of Christianity, are good for those who like la la land. It's just better not to put them in our laws--some of us don't believe in la la land.
Have you ever seen a cause, that is whatever it is that lets you say that A causes B? Or does cause simply exists in your head (as Hume would have it). Hope you get the point: if not, I can elaborate.
ReplyDelete"A causes B"?? Well, beginning in graduate school 50 years ago I began studying cause and effect versus correlation. Correlation is when two things happen, perhaps randomly, but one does not cause the other. So in cause and effect, the cause is usually not absolute, at least in the social sciences. There is a percentage it might be a cause. So, if I prayed five days in a row for sunshine and five days in a row there was sunshine, I'd call in correlation. Is this what you are asking about?
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, in part the answer is "yes". But I was really addressing the concept of cause qua cause. When we say that A causes B, what do we mean by the cause that connects A and B? We, of course, are saying that A has to power/capacity of causing B. And we can explore/describe all the reasons that get us from A to B. That, essentially, is what science does. Common sense does, too (e.g. the force of my hand flips a coin, determining inter alia that the result will be heads or tails.) Yet, there is something left over: namely what is the cause involved. Seems that it is something invisible, metaphysical, something that distinguishes real causation from something merely coincidental, random or co-relative. One can hold, contrary to the notion of real causation , that when you flip a coin you will just get either heads or tails (leaving aside the remote possibility that the coin will come up on edge). That it is not a matter of causation but rather a matter of simple correlation/probability: that the notion of causation is something that exists only in our mind, having no reality outside of our mind (Hume and Kant famously wrestled with this issue). In fine: it would seem that there are things in this world that really, really exist but are invisible. Not everything that is real can be seen. That said you probably will think of this a long winded way/obtuse way of saying nothing of importance. Sed contra: I think that it is essential to any rational understanding of our world, philosophy, theology, science, even economics.
ReplyDeleteIt's fun to visit about this. As I've said before, it is possible (thought in my view not probable) there are forces outside the realm of our understanding. I discount, here, "miracles" and such which come from probabilities. We don't know the origin of the universe. We may, however, know it some day or know more about it than we do now. On causation being only in our mind, that comes up all the time in debates about science. Even in controlled experiments the results could be caused by variables not included but the scientist does not know these other variables so attributes cause to the wrong thing--that which is in his mind. On science, there is a century old debate between social scientists and hard scientists. Hard science says social science is bogus because it cannot control enough variables to assign cause. Social scientists criticize hard science because it makes the sweeping assumption there is order out there somewhere and the only task is to find it. Maybe there is not order. In economics there are so many variables it is not possible to predict much. It is helpful in understanding the past, at least sometimes.
Delete