Imbarre,
I am puzzled by your belief that Jesus could ever be seen as a failed Messiah. A failed Messiah who founded the largest religion in the world?
First of all, composition or literary crticism is common procedure among critical intepreters. See for example this page where the Passion Narrative is being evaluated.
earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html
I do not believe things. I think them. I am a rationalist. I understand orginal PN to portray Jesus as a failed Messiah, and I think for reasons given, that this portrayal is historical. What ironically created a renewed faith in Jesus was a discovery of the empty tomb. The disciples of Jesus took this as evidence that Jesus had risen, although he was not immediately to be seen. I find it more probable, that having received a probable bribe from Joseph, Pilate either changed his mind or reasoned he did not want the memory of Jesus to be propogated on the basis of his burial place, much like the US government quiety disposed of Bin-Laden’s body at sea. So I think the thesis that best explains the empty tomb is simply that Pilate had it removed. But the women’s discovery of it fueled the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. The appearance stories seem about as convincing as sightings of Elvis. Why does he appear only to his disciples and then quickly disappear into the realm of the blessed dead? I have little optimism that I should convince a committed Christian such as yourself.
Oh, come on. You have to demolish Paul before you can even begin to start with Mark. And finding where people 'redacted; the gospel is about as scientific as psychics. It is all too often based on the emotions and beliefs of the scholar.
Paul had a vision of Jesus, as apparently did James and the Twelve. The reference to the 500 appears to be a gloss. Would you like me to support this textually? I would be happy to. There is also the thesis that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an insertion. I find this also of merit. Note how vv 1-2 are carried on in v 12ff in the notion of preaching the Gospel.
I should say, sir, that I do not need to ask for your credentials as it is evident that you have none, do you? I ask because you asked me. You seem to fall into the category of an “educated layman.” Do do not know koine Greek, do you? Hence, you have not access to primary data and rest about a sort of tabloid knowledge of New Testament scholarship. And here you are quite emotional and apparently unable to address my specific arguments.
I think it might be useful to go over how Jesus used prophecies, and also how the early Christians found proof for Jesus in the books of the Old Testament. Multiple fulfillment of prophecies and typology were used from the first.
You seem to have no awareness of the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus. To seem to take at face value that everything said about him is historically true. If you were as familiar with New Testament scholarship as you like to imply, then you should know that most NT scholars think that a historical Jesus has been renderred in tradition in terms of legend and myth. I watched a video by Bart Erhman regarding his arguments in a book against the mythicists. I have the same exact position and have used Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9:5 to roundly debunk the mythicists radical skepticism. adelphos in these passages can only mean a literal sibling.
You are mistaken if I set out to argue for a historical Jesus. As it turns out, a Aristotelian tragedy is best when it is realilstic… It’s not that I claim to have established the historicity of Jesus, What I claim is novel is that in original PN here is depicted as an Aristotelian tragic hero, who did asking why his god had abandoned him. Perhpas you would like to share your interpretation of Mark 15:34.
eloi eloi lama sabachthani
which is translated
My God, my God
why have you forasken me?
I predict that you will imposes Pauline theology onto this statement, that Jesus became “sin” so that we might become the righteousness of God. Am I close?
Before Mark ever wrote a word, Paul was writing about types. Adam was a type of Christ. Adam’s failures had to be restored by Jesus. Moses was a type of Jesus. Types, or patterns, were completed, or at least very much greater, in the New Testament. Types were not prophecies, but in many ways they proved the key to understanding the Old Testament.
I don’t understand what the above comment relates to. Can you clarify?
Perhaps you had better explain why you think Jesus was a failed Messiah. Because I doubt you understand how Catholics believe Christ fulfilled the prophecies and was the Messiah.
I have explained, but it has gone over your head.
First there is the literary critical evidence of Markan expansions of pMark. Most importantly, that the PN concluded in 15:39.
Then there is the form-critical argument that the PN is a Aristotelian tragedy.
I find you “aw shucks” tone rather precicious.
God bless you with joy and light this Christmas, Annem
Come on, I was expecting better than this from you people.