Devapriyaji - True History Analaysed

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: புதிய ஏற்பாடு கதாசிரியர்கள் யார்? புனையப்பட்டது எப்போது?


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
புதிய ஏற்பாடு கதாசிரியர்கள் யார்? புனையப்பட்டது எப்போது?
Permalink  
 


மத்தேயு

220px-The_Evangelist_Matthew_Inspired_by_an_Angel.jpg

http://www.arulvakku.com/biblecontent.php?book=Mat&Cn=1

எருசலேம் கோவிலின் அழிவுக்குப் பின்னர் யூதச்சங்கங்கள் கிறிஸ்தவர்களைத் துன்புறுத்திய ஒரு காலக்கட்டத்தில்இந்நூல் எழுதப்படடிருக்க வேண்டும். இயேசுவின் சீடர்கள் யூதத் தொழுகைக் கூடங்களை விட்டுவிட்டுத் திருச்சபையாகக் கூடிவரத் தொடங்கிவிட்ட காலத்தில் இந்நூல் தோன்றியிருக்கிறது. 

 

இயேசுவைப் பின்பற்றிய ஒரு திருததூதர் தாமே நேரில் கண்ட, கேட்ட, நிகழ்ச்சிகளை நூலாக வடித்திருக்கிறார் என்பதை விட, அவரது வழிமரபில் வந்த சீடரோ, குழுவினரோ இதனைத் தொகுத்து எழுதியிருக்கவேண்டும் எனக்கொள்வதே சிறப்பு.

 

மத்தேயு முதன்முதலில் எழுதினார் என்றும் அதனை அரமேய மொழியில் எழுதினார் என்றும் திருச்சபை மரபு கருதுகிறது. எனினும் இன்று நம்மிடையே இருக்கும் கிரேக்க மத்தேயு நற்செய்தி நூல் ஒரு மொழிபெயர்ப்பு நூலாகத் தோன்றவில்லை.

அதாவது சீடர் எழுதவில்லை. கிரேக்க மொழ்யில் புனையப்பட்டது தான்

http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%87%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%81_%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF

மத்தேயு நற்செய்தி, மாற்கு நற்செய்தியின் அடிப்படையில் அமைந்தது என மிகப் பெரும்பான்மையான அறிஞர்கள் கருதுகின்றனர். மாற்கு நற்செய்தியை ஆங்காங்கே திருத்தியும் விரித்தும் எழுதப்பட்ட மத்தேயு நற்செய்திக்கு, வேறு இரண்டு மூல ஆதாரங்கள் பயன்பட்டன எனத் தெரிகிறது. ஒன்று "Q" என அழைக்கப்படும் ஆதார ஏடு. "Q" என்பது Quelle என்னும் செருமானியச் சொல்லின் முதல் எழுத்து; இதற்கு ஆங்கிலத்தில் Source, அதாவது மூலம், ஆதாரம் என்பது பொருள். மற்றொரு மூலம் மத்தேயுவுக்கே தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் ஆதாரமாக இருந்த ஏடு எனவும் அதற்கு "M" எனப் பெயர் வழங்குவது எனவும் அறிஞர் முடிவுசெய்துள்ளனர்.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
RE: புதிய ஏற்பாடு கதாசிரியர்கள் யார்? புனையப்பட்டது எப்போது?
Permalink  
 


மாற்கு

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGb1dmophmAE76L5z_CtRHS4JHJTYos3GvFEDHV6Bhtjyl86yi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[7] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][8][9][10] but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown.[11][12]The gospel was written in Greek shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, possibly in Syria.

Ending

Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, appears to be a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at a description of the empty tomb, which is immediately preceded by a statement by a "young man dressed in a white robe" that Jesus is "risen" and is "going ahead of you into Galilee." The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[32] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9–20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[33] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[33]

The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.

http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81_%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%B1%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF_(%E0%AE%A8%E0%AF%82%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D)

 

யூதரல்லாத பிற இனத்தவர், கிறித்தவர்களாக மாறி ஒரு சமூகமாக உருவாகியிருந்த நிலையில், இந்நற்செய்தி அவர்களுக்கு எழுதப்பட்டது எனத் தெரிகிறது. எனவே, நற்செய்தியாளர், யூத பழக்க வழக்கங்கள் பற்றிய விரிவான விளக்கங்கள் ஆங்காங்கே தருகிறார். எடுத்துகாட்டாக, மாற்கு 7:3-4ஐக் கூறலாம். அங்கு, யூதர்கள் உணவருந்துவதற்கு முன் தங்கள் மூதாதையரின் மரபைப் பின்பற்றித் தம் கைகளைக் கழுவினர் என்பதற்கு விளக்கம் தருகிறார். இதுவும் மாற்கு நற்செய்திக்கும் உரோமைக்கும் உள்ள தொடர்புக்குச் சான்றாகிறது.

மாற்கு நற்செய்தி ஒருவேளை கலிலேயாவில் எழுதப்பட்டிருக்கலாம் என்றும், கி.பி. 70ஆம் ஆண்டில், உரோமைத் தளபதி (பின்னாள் பேரரசன்) தீத்துவின் காலத்தில் எருசலேம் திருக்கோவில் உரோமையரால் அழிக்கப்பட்ட நிகழ்ச்சியோடு தொடர்புடையதாகலாம் எனவும் சில அறிஞர்கள் கருத்துத் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

எவ்வாறாயினும் மாற்கு நற்செய்தி கி.பி. சுமார் 70ஆம் ஆண்டில் எழுதப்பட்டிருக்க வேண்டும் என அறிஞர் பெரும்பான்மையோர் முடிவுசெய்துள்ளனர்.

மற்ற நற்செய்தி நூல்களான மத்தேயு,லூக்கா என்பவற்றுடன் இந்நூல் பொதுவான வசன எடுத்தாள்கையையும், உள்ளடக்கத்தையும் கொண்டுள்ளது. எனவே, இம்மூன்று நற்செய்தி நூல்களும் இணைந்து ஒத்த கதை நற்செய்தி நூல்கள்(Synoptic Gospels)[2] என்று அழைக்கப்படுவதும் உண்டு.

THE TRUTH

மாற்கு கதாசிரியரும் நேரடி சாட்சி இல்லை- செவிவழி கதைஅயை கேட்டு புனைந்தவரே!

இயேசு பழைய உடம்பி உயிரோடு உயிர்த்து எழுந்ததான கதை 16: 8 வரை(8 அவர்கள் கல்லறையைவிட்டு வெளியே வந்து ஓட்டம் பிடித்தார்கள்; நடுக்கமுற்று மெய் மறந்தவர்களாய் யாரிடமும் எதுவும் கூறவில்லை. ஏனெனில் அவர்கள் அச்சம் கொண்டிருந்தார்கள்.) மட்டுமே பெரும்பாலான ஏடுகளும் சர்ச் தலைவர்களும் காட்டுகின்றனர். அதாவது புதிய ஏற்பாட்டில் ஏசு உயிர்த்து தரிசனம் காட்சி என்பவை எல்லம் கட்டுக்கதையே.



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 9
Date:
Permalink  
 

How about others. You have shown Matthew and Mark are not eyewitness accounts.

Luke was the doctor with Paul-John is the beloved Disciple as per Chruch?

Are they also wrong?



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
Permalink  
 

This anonymous gospel was the first to be written, between 60 and 80ce, by a Roman convert to Christianity. It was copied word-for-word and used extensively by Matthew and Luke, as their primary source although they edited some details. Nevertheless, the gospel author didn't meet Jesus, wrote in Greek, not Hebrew, and was not a Jew. It is unlikely that Mark knew any Jews. There was no-one to correct his blunders about Jewish life, such as misquoting the 10 commandments, attributing God's words to Moses, and having Jews buy things on the Sabbath. The Gospel of Mark has undergone many changes and there are several ancient versions. The oldest versions of Mark all end at Mark 16:8 many with the words "according to Mark". 9-20 was a later edition by a different unknown author. The Gospel of Mark contradicts the other gospels on many points and contains internal inconsistencies, some of these were later fixed by Matthew and Luke when they made their own copies of Mark. Half way through the second century the Christian proto-orthodox had come to call it 'Mark', although the author is unknown.


1. The Gospel of Mark

The author of Mark never met Jesus. He wrote in Greek, whereas Jesus and the original Christians spoke Aramaic. Despite this, Matthew and Luke use Mark as their most important source and copy 95% of his text for their own later gospels.


"Of the 661 verses in Marks' Gospel, Matthew's Gospel uses about 607 and Luke's Gospel uses about 360"

Steven Carr

The author of Mark wrote in a form of 'Latinized' Greek after (or shortly before) the destruction of the Temple in 70ce, which he mentions. He must have been born 30-50ce. He wrote in either Rome or Syria. The Latin-Greek is similar to the written language of Rome, and the 'sense of persecution' also hints that Mark wrote in Rome, where Nero was the worst for persecuting Christians. "Mark" was Written before Matthew and Luke (100ce), who both use Mark as a source. It was the most extensive source for the other gospels, and there are only about 30 verses that were not copied or used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. Despite this, Mark did not actually meet Jesus nor speak the same language as him.

The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously was not known as a Gospel of 'Mark' for over a hundred years. When Christians came to name the gospels, they picked 'Mark', who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of Heaven.

As a Roman, Mark directed his writings at a Roman audience. He felt required to explain Jewish customs, and does not bother to explain Roman culture to his readers. Yet he did not extensively understand Jewish culture, and his gospel once even misquotes the 10 commandments! He commits other errors that no Jew (no long term friend of Peter) could have committed, such as having Jews buy things on the Sabbath, of quoting Moses instead of God, and confusing many other Jewish things. Many such things are described on this document by Steven Carr, attached to the end of this page.

2. Our Version of Mark is Different to the Original

Many versions of Mark circulated in ancient history. The version we have dates to around 150ce. One of the more shocking versions of the gospel of Mark is the Carpocratians version of Mark that describes Jesus's paedophiliac relations with young boys, which the Carpocratians considered a virtue.

The first thing to point out is that [...] Mark's Gospel circulated in different versions. [...] Weknow that it did, since we have numerous manuscripts of Mark's Gospel, as well as of all the books of the New Testament, and no two of these manuscripts are exactly alike [...]. Some of the differences are significant. For example, when Jesus is approached by a leper who wants to be healed (Mark 1:41), rather than indicating that Jesus felt compassion (as found in most manuscripts), some of our earliest manuscripts instead say that he became angry. [...]

Of even greater significance are the last twelve verses of Mark, in which Jesus appears to his disciples after the resurrection, telling them to preach the gospel to all the nations and indicating that those who believe in him will speak in strange tongues, handle snakes, and drink poison without feeling its effects. But this amazing and startling ending is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of Mark. Instead, these manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, where the women at Jesus' tomb are told that he has been raised, are instructed to inform Peter, but then flee the tomb and say nothing to anyone, "for they were afraid." [...] There is no account of Jesus appearing to his disciples, after the resurrection.

"Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)1

3. Mark was Not a Jew and had No Jewish Contacts

Mark didn't appear to know any Hebrew or Aramaic (the language of Jesus and his first followers). All his quotes from the Old Testament are from the faulty Septuagint translation, in Greek. For example:

The most telling moment [...] is when Mark has Jesus quote from the Old Testament in his arguments against the Pharisees. Nothing surprising about this - except that Jesus quotes from the mistranslated Greek version of the Old Testament, which suits his purpose precisely, not from the original Hebrew, which says something quite different [...]. That Jesus the Jew should quote a Greek mistranslation of Jewish Holy Scripture to impress orthodox Jewish Pharisees is simply unthinkable.

"The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) [Book Review]2

Freke and Gandy explain that this can only occur because Mark was written, not by a Jew or anyone who had met Jesus, but by a Roman who didn't speak Hebrew and didn't know that the Greek translation was imperfect.

The following is an abstract from Steven Carr's text. He explains in great detail all the mistakes Mark makes about Jewish customs, beliefs and practices and shows without a doubt that Mark was not a Jew. It seems clear that Mark probably didn't have any Jewish friends to read over his writings or correct him. Matthew and Luke quoted Mark at length: Matthew understood Jewish ways and therefore corrected many of Mark's mistakes.

Mark was not by Mark!

To determine that, it is necessary to look very closely at how Luke and especially Matthew used Mark's Gospel. Time and time again, we see Matthew correcting Mark's blunders about Judaism. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias' bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church.

  • Comparing Matthew 15:4 with Mark 7:10, Mark represents a more Gentile attitude in quoting the Old Testament as "Moses said" rather than "God said." Matthew, a Jew, would never have attributed the 10 commandments to Moses. It was God who said them, as all Jews will tell you.

  • Mark 5:22: "One of the rulers of the synagogue." Diaspora synagogues may sometimes have had more than ruler, as at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:15), but Palestinian synagogues normally had only one. Matthew 9:18, drops this phrase.

     

  • Mark 14:12: On the first day of unleavened bread when they sacrificed the Passover, confuses Nisan 15 with Nisan 14. Naturally, Matthew 26:17 drops the phrase "when they sacrificed the Passover". Was Mark a Jew who did not know about the Passover?

  • Mark 14:13 says that the disciples were to be met by a man carrying a pitcher of water. Matthew 26:18 drops the idea that a Jewish man would do a woman's work.

  • Mark 15:42, "When evening was already come, because it was Friday (paraskeue) that is, the day before the sabbath ..." . This means "either that Friday began with that sunset, and Jesus had died on Thursday; or else, the evangelist forgot [or did not know] that the Jewish day began at evening." Matthew 27:57-62 clarifies Mark's confusion over Jewish days. Interestingly, the NIV tries to translate the problem away by writing for Mark 15:42 'So as evening approached", rather than "and when evening had come", as the RSV has it.

  • Mark 15:46 says that that same evening Joseph of Arimathea "bought a linen cloth." Matthew drops the idea of a Jew buying something on the Sabbath. No Jew could have made that mistake.

  • Mark 1:2 wrongly ascribes Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah. Matthew 3:3 corrects this.

  • In Mark 2:7 the teachers of the law complain that Jesus is forgiving sins and say 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?'. Jews did not think that. Matthew 9:3 drops the phrase. There is a Dead Sea Scroll called 'The Prayer of Nabonidus'(4Q242) , written and copied by Jews, where it is said by Nabonidus '... an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew...'. Jews did believe that God could give authority to men to forgive sin.

  • Mark 2:26 - Abiathar should be Ahimelech.Matthew 12:1-8 does not repeat the mistake. Incidentally, if Jesus was thinking of 1 Sam. 21:1-8 when he said that David and those who were with him were hungry, then, in his omniscience, he forgot that David was on the run alone and the story that David told Ahimelech was a falsehood - David was not on a mission from the king and he did not have an appointment with any young men.

  • Mark 10:19 misquotes the Ten Commandments and inserts an extra commandment: "Do not defraud." Matthew 19:18-20 sticks to the original 10, plus the one that many Rabbis regarded as a summary of the commandments.

  • Mark 15:34 has Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1 in Aramaic (Eloi). Had Jesus done this, bystanders could hardly have supposed that he was calling for Elijah. Jesus must have used Hebrew Eli, as at Matthew 27:46. The NIV tries to harmonize Matthew and Mark here by using Eloi in both places.

     

More dubious statements by a "Companion of Peter"

  • Mark 7:31 says that Jesus and his disciples journeyed "out from the borders of Tyre ... through Sidon, to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders". The journey described is like "travelling from Cornwall to London by way of Manchester" (Anderson, H. _The Gospel of Mark_, NCB (London, 1976).

  • Mark 8:10 refers to the "the district of Dalmanutha." As far as is known, there was no such place in Galilee. (The difficulty was recognized early because there are many textual variants in the manuscripts.)

  • Mark 5:1 specifies that the eastern side of the lake of Galilee is the country of theGerasenes. This is more than 30 miles from a lake. This caused a lot of confusion as can be seen by the variety of names in the texts here. Matthew changed Mark's Gerasenes to Gadarenes in Matthew 8:28. Gadara was a well-known spa only eight miles from the lake.

  • Mark 6:14-27 repeatedly refers to Herod Antipas as a "king." Matthew commits this error only once (14:9). The correct title 'tetrarch' appears in Matthew 14:1Luke 3:19,Luke 9:7Acts 13:1, but not once in Mark's Gospel.

  • Mark 6:17 says that Antipas married the wife of his brother Philip. According to Josephus, Antiquities.18.5.4, she was actually the wife of a different brother.

Places where Matthew adds Jewish elements which 'Mark' overlooked

  • Mark 13:17-19 fails to urge Jesus' followers to pray that they do not have to flee on the sabbath (compare Matthew 24:20).

  • Mark 2:23-28 lacks the appeal to the Mosaic Law found in Matthew 12:5.

  • Mark 7:19b, a comment by the evangelist, asserts that Jesus "declared all foods clean." Matthew 15:20 drops this. It is inconceivable that Jesus would have abolished the food laws without his opponents ever once mentioning that in accusations.

  • Mark 9:4 names Elijah before Moses. Naturally, Matthew 17:3 puts Moses before Elijah, as Moses is far more important to Jews than Elijah.

  • Mark 11:10 refers to the kingdom our father David. No Jew would have referred to our father David. The father of the nation was Abraham, or possibly Jacob, who was renamed Israel. Not all Jews were sons of David. Naturally, Matthew 21:9 does not refer to our father David.

  • Mark 12:31,33,34 subordinate the Torah to love, and to the kingdom, in contrast toMatt. 22:36-40, who as a Jew, put a far greater emphasis on the Law.

Mark has to explain Jewish features.

Mark never explains Gentile matters, such as who Pilate was. However, he assumes that his intended readers know even less about Judaism than he does and he has to explain the most elementary features. By contrast, Matthew makes more use of Judaism and assumes his readers are up to speed. Was Mark really a Jewish companion of Peter, or someone who was very close to the earliest, Jewish, followers of Jesus?

  • Only Mark 12:42 explains that a lepton, a coin used in Palestine, was worth half a quadrans. Further more, "quadrans" is a word borrowed from Latin.

  • Mark 10:12 forbids women to divorce their husbands and remarry. But Jewish law already forbade that! The teaching would have seemed outlandish to a Jew of Palestine, but was an appropriate expansion for those of pagan background.

     

  • At Mark 3:17 and Mark 10:46, he has to explain the most elementary meanings of Aramaic surnames. This is supposedly from somebody to whom Aramaic was a mother tongue. Even if Mark is just explaining things to his readers, it is clear that his readers, being ignorant of elementary Aramaic and even the currency of Palestine, would have been in no position to check out any of the things that he wrote.

  • Mark 6:48 uses 'the fourth watch'. The Jews divided the night into three watches. The Romans divided the night into four watches, according to the conservative 'New Bible Dictionary'. This is still more evidence that Mark's Gospel was written for people who would have been familiar with Roman and not Jewish customs, and so would have found it hard to check the Gospel stories.

There is nothing in Mark which a well educated Roman Gentile would not have known. For example, when Mark 15:38 talks about the curtain of the Temple, Roman Gentiles would have known that the Temple had a curtain, as it was taken to Rome after Jerusalem was sacked (Book 7, Chapter 5 in 'Wars of the Jews' by Josephus).

Mark didn't know Peter

We have seen already that Mark was not known as a Gospel of 'Mark' for over a hundred years. When Christians came to name the Gospels, they picked 'Mark', who they thought should be a disciple of Peter, who in Greek mythology was associated with the Egyptian god Petra, the gate guardian of Heaven. Nowadays, Christians nowadays consider 'Peter' to be a genuine historical person, but it seems that even if he was real, Mark didn't know him. Peter certainly could have corrected any of Mark's errors in Jewish knowledge, and it is ludicrous to assume that Mark wrote this text without showing Peter (or any other Jew). It is clear that Mark didn't know any Jews. All three other gospels refer to Peter (Matthew 16:17-20Luke 22:28-32 and John 21:15-17) and give him authority, whereas Mark doesn't. I think Mark knew Peter was not real; but merely a piece of Roman mythology used symbolically in a way all Romans would have understood. Later authors (such as the Jewish author of the Gospel of Matthew), who copied Mark's text, did not know this, therefore they elevated him.

4. Why was Mark Written?

Professor Dennis R MacDonald writes: "Whether as a response to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followers of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. Its dialogues, tragic outcome, and peculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus."

"Early Christian Literature" by Prof. Dennis R. MacDonald, via Wikipedia accessed 2006 Aug 21

The re-writing of the Jewish-Christian stories about Jesus into a complete biography were as revolutionary as St Paul's letters to the early Christian churches. Together they produced a Roman version of Jewish Christianity.

5. The Contradictions, Absurdities and Confused Stories of Mark

  • Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, but in Mark they are told to wear sandals (contradicting Matthew), and are told to take a staff (contradicting Luke):

     

    Matthew 10:9-10Mark 6:8-9Luke 9:3
    Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staffTake nothing for the journey except a staff - no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.Take nothing for the journey - no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

     

  • The gospels describe where Jesus taught. Mark contradicts Luke and John's accounts:

     

    Book CoverMark has Jesus teaching only in the area of Galilee, and not in Judea, and only traveling the 70 miles to Jerusalem once, at the end of his life. Luke, however, portrays Jesus as teaching equally in Galilee and Judea. John's Jesus, on the other hand, preaches mainly in Jerusalem and makes only occasional visits to Galilee.

    "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) [Book Review]3

  • Mark contradicts Luke and John on the issue of how Jesus was sentenced:

     

    According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. Luke has it that Jesus was [not] sentenced by them. Yet according to John, Jesus does not appear before the Sanhedrin at all.

    "The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999) [Book Review]4

  • The gospel of Mark does not describe the history of Jesus or his virgin birth. These parts of the New Testament's stories were added by Matthew, 30 years later, who assimilated other myths into the legends.

The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other, even on the parts of Christian mythology which Christians consider to be the most important: The crucifixion and resurrection. They give different sets of final words, confusingly different accounts of the empty tomb (one of them including an earthquake), and wildly different accounts of the resurrection. They're all making it up!

"The Crucifixion Facade" by Vexen Crabtree (2002)

Two minor contradictions with Matthew on the wording of Jesus and the details of some events show us that passing on stories by word-of-mouth causes inaccuracies:

Matthew 20:29-34 (Jesus heals 2 blind men)Mark 10:46-52 (Only 1 blind man)
And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do for you?" They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened." And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received their sight and followed him.And they came to Jericho; and as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great multitude, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!" And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent; but he cried out all the more, "Son of David, have mercy on me!"... And Jesus said to him, "What do you want me to do for you?" And the blind man said to him, "Master, let me receive my sight." And Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made you well." And immediately he received his sight and followed him on the way.
Matthew 21:12 (Jesus goes from the Temple to Bethany, and saw the fig tree)Mark 11:11-17
And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you make it a den of robbers."...But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant; and they said to him, "Do you hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes; have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise'?" And leaving them, he went out of the city to Bethany and lodged there. In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside he went to it, and found nothing on it but leaves only. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once.And he entered Jerusalem,and went into the temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again". And his disciples heard it. And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers."

Hansss

An excerpt from Steven Carr on other contradictions:

Mark 4:11 says that the secret of the kingdom of God has been given to the disciples. What was this secret? When was it given to the disciples, who seem totally ignorant of who Jesus was (Mark 4:41)?

In Mark 6:7-13 till 29-30 the disciples are sent out to preach and teach. As the disciples did not know Jesus was the Messiah until Mark 8:30, that must have been interesting!

Peter - Repent of your sins, and follow Jesus of Nazareth.
Bystander in the crowd - Is he the Messiah who will rid us of the cursed Roman occupation?
Peter - I never thought to ask him. I don't know. I'll ask him when I see him again, and get back to you.

What could the disciples have preached and taught in Mark 6 that had anything to do with the secret of the kingdom of God? Why send people out to teach without explaining that you are the Messiah?

They were also given power over evil spirits, but it is not until Mark 9:29 that Jesus explains that they have to pray first before driving out a demon. How did the disciples drive out demons before that, when Jesus had neglected to give them such basic instruction as to pray first?

Mark 7:14 gives some instruction about the Law which a simpleton could grasp, yet Jesus tells the disciples in verse 18 that they are without understanding. These are the preacher-teachers who had been given the secret of the kingdom of God.

Despite not being able to understand, and not knowing, elementary instruction about the Law, they had already by chapter 3 had liberal practices on fasting and the Sabbath, and the whole teaching of chapter 7 which the disciples did not understand) was caused by a question about the practices of those same disciples!

Don't forget that these preacher-teachers, who had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God in 4:11, had had their hearts hardened in 6:52, so that they did not understand even such a blatant miracle as walking on water. Why give the disciples the secret of the kingdom of God and then harden their hearts so that they don't understand it? Surely the average Christian would fall about laughing if he read such stories in the Book of Mormon or the Qu'ran.

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
Permalink  
 

Some Characteristics Unique to Mark

  • Son of Man is the main title used for Jesus in Mark [...] Mark has Jesus call himself 'Son of Man' numerous times

  • The testing of Jesus for forty days contains no discourse between Jesus and Satan (Mark 1:12-13). Later authors added this.

  • Jesus's family say he is out of his mind (Mark 3:21).

     

  • Only place in the New Testament Jesus is addressed as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3) and the only gospel that both names his brothers and mentions his sisters (Mark 6:3). Matthew has a slightly different name for one brother and no mention of sisters (Matthew 13:55). Jewish authors were not often inclined to mentionmothers and sisters, only brothers and fathers.

     

  • When Jesus is arrested a young naked man flees (Mark 14:51-52). The Greeks were much more inclined to write of romantic involvements between spiritual leaders and young men.

6. Appendix: Bible Verses



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
Permalink  
 

Is Tacitus Reference an Interpolation?
In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate... 
excepted maybe in the extract below. 

On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost
three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings.
According to Tacitus, rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero.
To stop them, Tacitus said he then blamed the disastor on the Christians...

Nero, in order to stifle the rumor, ascribed to those people
who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians: These he punished exquisitely.
The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius,
was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate
.
This pernicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again;
and spread not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city also:
whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement.

At first, only those were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect;
afterwards, a vast multitude were detected by them, all of whom were condemned,
not so much for the crime of burning the city, as their hatred of mankind.

Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt.
Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified.
Others, having been daubed over with combustible materials,
were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death.
Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion,
and also exhibited the diversions of the circus, sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator,
in the habit of a charioteer; at other times driving a chariot himself, till at length those men,
though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment,
began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed,
not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man
.

Annals, Book XV, sec. 44

Now, let's LOOK CLOSER to the text:

1 - Nero's atrocities against Christians

  • The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the dark ages, and not likeTacitus. The dramatic and fantastic description of the tortures suffered by the scapegoats resembles the executions portrayed in later legendary Acts of Christian Martyrs.
    See also Nero’s Fire and the Christian Persecution?
  • If there was a vast multitude of Christians in Rome at that date, there is little chance Christianity started 30 years before in Judea by eleven ignorant peasants and fishermen.
  • There is no corroborating evidence that Nero persecuted the Christians so vigorously:
    • In chapter 5 of his Apology, after claiming that the emperor Tiberius had been a Christian, 
      Tertullian writes:
      Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero
      was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect,
      making progress then especially at Rome.

      In chapter 21, after asserting that Pilate also had become a Christian, he said that: 
      His disciples also... after suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews...
      at last by Nero's cruel sword sowed the seed of Christian blood at Rome.

      There is no hint that this man's balloon-like imagination had ever been inflated by Tacitus' tale
      of Christians being burned as night-lights in Nero's garden.
      F.Zindler The Jesus the Jews Never Knew
    • Origen has little to say about any persecutions.
    • Although Eusebius knows the tradition of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul under Nero and even conceives the persecution of Christians under Nero -- 
      the first of the emperors who showed himself to be the enemy of the divine religion 
      --as a kind of salvation-historical turning point in Christian history-- 
      he nevertheless makes no reference to the "multitude" of believers 
      who supposedly suffered martyrdom under Nero at the time of the burning of Rome.
    • Irenaeus makes no reference at all to a persecution under Nero.
    • Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments 
      he took particular care that no human lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."


2 - Nero starting the fire 

  • Fires were an extremely common occurrence in ancient Rome (hence the Vigili)
  • Nero was in Antium at the time the fire broke out
  • He had finished, in the same year, his sumptuous palace, Domus Transitoria, which was destroyed in the fire
  • He rushed back to help fight the fire
  • He had no reason to start such a fire
  • Tacitus and Suetonius were paid to write their histories by enemies of the Julio-Claudian family.
  • Their accounts are clearly biased against Nero.
See Secrets of the dead: The Great Fire of Rome 


3 - Christians starting the fire 

  • It is highly remarkable that no other ancient source associates Christians with the burning of Rome until Sulpicius Severusin the late fourth century who seems moreover only repeating Tacitus.
  • Other ancient historians also refer to Nero's persecution of Christians (SuetoniusDio CassiusPliny the Elder),
    but none of these associates the persecution of Christians with the burning of Rome.
    • In his Life of NeroSuetonius writes:
      Punishment was inflicted on the Christians,
      a class of men addicted to a novel and mischievous superstition.
      "
      The implication of "mischievous" is not far to undercut the notion in Tacitus that this was a gang of arsonists.
      Suetonius fails to mention their punishment having anything to do with the fire.
    • In 112 or so, Pliny wrote to Trajan about christians basically asking
      what do I do with these people?".
      Trajan responded in a fairly mild manner.
  • Both Trajan and Pliny were alive when the Tacitus comment claims that christians were held responsible for burning down 2/3 of the city of Rome. As Roman aristocrats it would seem that both Pliny and Trajan would be a little more worked up about this sect of crazed arsonists living in their midst.
    So, on the one hand we are asked to believe that these stories were rampant when Tacitus was writing the Annales at the same general time as Pliny was governor of Asia Minor, but on the other hand, Pliny and Trajan seem oblivious to the danger in their midst?
    Something does not compute.


4 - The Anti-Christian tone of the passage 

  • This silly argument simply says that a christian interpolator would not have the capacity to write something he would consider in the "tone" of Tacitus.
    Its severe criticisms of Christianity do not necessarily disprove its Christian origin.
    No ancient witness was more desirable than Tacitus, but his introduction at so late a period
    would make rejection certain unless Christian forgery could be made to appear improbable.
  • The argument can be even returned against the authenticity because it gives Christians an history of martyrs, persecutions and hate by pagans without any visible reasons. This can be reused to enhance believers faith and pride.
  • Since Christians had done nothing against any Greek or Roman up to the time of Tacitus,
    it seems bizarre that Tacitus should be so passionate in his hatred for them.
    However, it is evident from other passages in his work that he does passionately hate the Jews.
    He is very careful to explain the reason for his hatred of the Jews. Also, he consistently labels it a superstition.
    So we have to ask why Tacitus would carefully explain his reasons for hating the Jews and calling it a superstition, but not explain his reason for hating the Christians and calling their religion a superstition?
    Is there other passage in Tacitus where he expresses equivalent hatred for a group and does not explain why? 
    If not, it would not be impossible for example that Tacitus originally wrote the passage about the Jews 
    and it was later interpolated by Christians to be about Christians, so there is no missing motive. 
    This becomes just another of a series of passages in Tacitus attacking Jews.


5 - Miscellaneous 

  • The integration of the passage with the story:
    Tacitus has just written a beautifully vicious but subtle attack on Nero over the fire,
    yet the passage in question which naturally enough follows immediately on the fire,
    is a gross piece of sensationalism which changes the focus from Nero's presumed responsibility for the fire,
    to the horrendous treatment of the christians who earn the sympathy of the crowd,
    a sensationalism quite uncharacteristic of Tacitus.
  • Chapters 11-16 of the Annals derive from a single manuscript dated to the eleventh century.
    This copy, therefore must have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes.
    So there were certainly many opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote.
    As this single copy was in the possession of a Christian the insertion of a forgery was easy.
  • It is admitted by Christian writers that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any considerable degree of fidelity. In the writings ascribed to him are believed to be some of the writings of Quintilian.
  • Tacitus said: "commonly called Christians", but 'Christian' was not a common term in the first century.
    And it does not appear that Christians were separated very much from Jews in the mid first century,
    so it is not clear how Nero's agents would have identified them to make them scapegoats.
  • This story, in nearly the same words, omitting the reference to Christ,
    is to be found in the writings of Sulpicius Severus 360-420 CE, a Christian of the fifth century. In the meantinme, the number of the Christians being now very large, it happened that Rome was destroyed by fire, while Nero was stationed at Antium. But the opinion of all cast the odium of causing the fire upon the emperor, and he was believed in this way to have sought for the glory of building a new city. And in fact Nero could not, by any means he tried, escape from the charge that the fire had been caused by his orders. He therefore turned the accusation against the Christians, and the most cruel tortures were accordingly inflicted upon the innocent. Nay, even new kinds of death were invented, so that, being covered in the skins of wild beasts, they perished by being devored by dogs, while many were crucified or slain by fire, and not a few were set apart for this purpose, that, when the day came to a close, they should be consumed to serve for light during the night. In this way, cruelty first began to be manifested against the Christians. 
    Chronicles 2.29


6 - "The founder of that name was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, 
was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate
"
 

  • It is not quoted by the Christian fathers:
    • Tertullian
      He was familiar with the writings of Tacitus, and his arguments demanded the citation of this evidence had it existed.
    • Clement of Alexandria
      At the beginning of the third century, he made a compilation of all the recognitions of Christ and Christianity 
      that had been made by Pagan writers up to his time. The writings of Tacitus furnished no recognition of them.
    • Origen
      In his controversy with Celsus, he would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
    • Eusebius
      In the fourth century, the ecclesiastical historian Eusebius cites all the evidences of Christianity obtainable from Jewish and Pagan sources, but makes no mention of Tacitus.
    The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening.
  • It is not quoted by any Christian writer prior to the fifteenth century
  • The passage neither reflects Tacitus in tone nor in linguistic ability.
    Just consider "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante
    per procuratorem Pontius Pilatus supplicio adfectus erat
    ".
  • Vocabulary
    • Tacitus clearly knows when Judea was administered by 'procurators', 
      yet this passage calls Pontius Pilate a 'procurator' when he should have been called a 'prefect', 
      and, given Tacitus's knowledge in the area, including when procurators received magistrate's powers, 
      this would be an incredible error for Tacitus.
    • Tacitus does not use the name 'Jesus' but 'Christus'
    • Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate.
      John Meier tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance):
      "There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus;
      it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name
      -as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed
      in a pagan historian,
      "- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention.
  • Tacitus himself when dealing with this same period in his earlier work [Histories 5.9.2] gives no hint of this outrage. To the contrary, he says that in Palestine at this time "all was quiet".
  • It interrupts the narrative; it disconnects two closely related statements.
    Eliminate this sentence, and there is no break in the narrative.


It is very hard to contemplate the veracity of such passages when they have been preserved by means of christian scribes 
who have been known to interpolate and massage texts. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

But that it existed in the works of the greatest and best known of Roman historians, and was ignored or overlooked by Christian apologists for 1,360 years, looks very suspicious. 

And finally, even if genuine, it is too late and probably from Christians in Rome.
So the Myth theory can explain it very well.


__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 7409
Date:
Permalink  
 

 

                 Originally published 1998 Sep 1628

http://www.humanreligions.info/gospels.html
Parent page: Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Holy Bibles Across Different Traditions

Links



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard