Видео

It seems difficult to think this is an unfinished work when the chiastic structure fits so well as the ending reflects the beginning so well

I always thought Mark had Jesus’s mother Mary at the tomb… i was shocked when that wasn’t the normal view haha

Doesn’t it also make sense that the “double healing” is instead a vision of the kingdom. He sees men like trees walking. Which is to say he sees men carrying crosses

Also it’s wonderful chiasm as the angels ministered to him in the intro and the mention of the women minister to him at the end. (Personally I think the 40 day temptation in the wilderness is the gospel narrative) Also please somebody else see this haha but the women afflicted with bleeding is Eve. Or an allegory for her. When Jesus asks “who touched me”. He knows who touched him. This is further proved bc the disciples are again confused as they are. What he really is saying is “where are you?” And the entire scene is a healing of Eve. The text is nearly an exact parallel to the garden scene. Except from going into hiding she is coming out from hiding. Instead of lying she tells the whole truth. Also the blind man who sees “trees walking” in my opinion is clearly getting a vision of men carrying crosses.

Thank you Professor. Does this discovery contribute to dating the composition of the Synoptics to the 1st century?

There are more kind emotions from Anni Frid with all members of our ABBA!❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

A clear view of the drummer, let's gooo 🔥 thanks for the upload!

0:01 opening 0:55 1st appearance 1:42 i am the remembrance... 9:49 that which you have... 18:05 truly as for those... 20:34 since it has been said... 22:19 examine yourself... 46:30 i did not die in reality... 47:28 truly i tell you... 50:26 that which you have...

I'm not hopeful for this video. Episode 1 was about Gnosticism, then comes Catharism and then comes Hermeticism. Even the Mormons and the Quakers are more Gnostic than they. What is it to be about in this video? Catholicism? Evangelicalism and doomsday cults? UPDATE: I was wrong, it was about Jung! I call the producers of this TV series ignorami producing cr*p! Did Jung ever call himself Gnostic? Why not Zen Buddhists?

Hermeticism is not a demiurgic teaching, and so isn't Gnostic. Instead it is Judaism disguised as an Egyptic teaching, thus probably by a Jew that wanted to keep his faith, but not be identified to be identified as a Jew.

The Cathars weren't Gnostics. Gnosticism is when we are not guilty of original sin or of being responsible for our own imprisonment, the culprits being the Archons. The Cathars claimed that we were spirits that due to our own lack of goodness went lost and fell into the material world created by ourselves. They blameshift the creation to ourselves precisely like the Catholics and the Orthodoxes. The Cathars never belonged to us. While the real Gnostics were originally diverse Jews, the Cathars originated from the Paulicians via the Bogomiles, that is from a perhaps Marcionite-inspired Christianity, not a Judaism.

Hans Jonas got it far wrong. The Gnostics were nothing like "the first modern philosophers": they were ordinary main stream Middle Platonics adapting the Jewish text to the Platonic "science of the day." They were probably middle class Hellenized Jews that tried to "modernize" Judaism to conventional thinking. For this they were disenfranchized by Hebrew speaking Jews, and then emerged the Gnostics, the so called "Minim".

I loved when all this Mary Magdeline stuff came out, the speculation about being Jesus's love interest. I remember learning about this 20 years ago and it was staring me in the face my entire life. Jesus was human. Did he renounce sex? Probably not. And then Mary Magdeline apparently went on to become a big player in early Christianity, if I remember correctly.

Amazing job! you both look and sound like the real deal. Would love to see more from you guys!

Really interesting summary

When I went to do my PhD, I didn't know what theme I wanted so I asked a friend and she said "choose something you don't like because it'll definitely be ruined for you" 😂

Seems to me like it's more than residual fundamentalism―it's structural fundamentalism. Those trying to fight the biases in the field will have to constantly question their assumptions, not unlike those fighting racism, sexism or colonialism in other scholarly fields.

In Portuguese, "redação" means simply "writing" or "composition", with that exact sense of structuring the text (as opposed to a focus on grammar or orthography). A high school class of redaction will teach things like how to write different textual genres.

Pretty much every time a longstanding hermeneutical question has a simple answer, it's also a wrong answer.

Pretty much every time a theological question has a simple answer, it's also a wrong answer.

This guy’s got a hell of a haircut.

Scholars who want to characterize the historical Jesus according to their own world view? These are the gospel writers. And the tendency to escape eschatology grows as time passes⸺starting with John.

Extremely interesting, I will absolutely attempt to read Dr. Walsh's book. Only one question though, is her thesis something that qould be (mis)used by mythicists as a kind of new proof that that the figure of Jesus is a theological-litterary construction rather than a historical person?

I know that i'm probably saying something obvious but still; if Jesus didn't think of himself as some kind of messianic figure and in eschatological terms, then why would he choose 12 disciples? Doesn't that kind of suggest that he thought himself as king or ruler of a new (spiritual?) kingdom and his disciples as the rulers of each tribe of Israel below him?

As works of literature, the Gospels are excellently written allegories. I think too many of my fellow non-believers dismiss them as great works of literature in their own right, I think the way they are crafted, the way they engage with their target audience is excellent and I particularly love Dennis Macdonald´s work, he´s persuaded me beyond reasonable doubt that Mark was using the Odyssey as a model for the narrative. I really love the layers of parables, of symbolism etc and I think there are so many puzzles to unwrap. I doubt Jesus was tried by Pontius Pilate personally, but does that mean he was killed in a mass execution ordered by Pilate and this got transformed into him being judged by Pilate in a distorted folk memory? Was this an allegory for some kind of Cosmic event, i.e Jesus being sent into hell (I´m not trying to make a mythicist argument here). We can´t know for sure. I tend like you, to see them as very creative authors, rather than just compilers. Indeed, some people have argued that Mark is writing in poor Greek, but I have heard an interesting argument that he might have been doing what Mark Twain did, i.e write in a vernacular Greek of people who were second language speakers intentionally. All interesting things to ponder.

I think you´re right that Paul was very aware of a Jesus tradition, the question is "how did that tradition start?". Was it things a real Jesus said or was it revelation (or a combination of both, which is also a real possiblity). The thing we don´t have for Paul is him saying for example "Jesus said this when he was preaching in Galilee" . If we had something like that, I would say mythicism is very unlikely. It could well be though, in my view, that the original 12 learned all they did from revelation Another interesting thing is the term "brothers of the lord" in 1 Corinthians 9:5 . It has been suggested that this term meant "cultic brothers" rather than siblings of Jesus and that it was a term meaning Christians who were not Apostles.

The pre-existing angelic figure stepping into flesh to be killed and, via blood-sacrifice, redeem humanity from original sin was shot through classical Jewish thought. So, that identification did not "happen quickly": it is the soil Christianity sprouted from. They had numerous names for the figure, including Anatole ("sprout") and Melchizedek, and a list of prophecies for it to fulfill that Paul quotes from frequently. The DSS even mentions it, a century earlier. A long list of scholars explain this, including Beckwith, Bergsma, Boyarin, Brooke, Brownlee, and others with names farther down the alphabet. Christianity's choice (lit. "God's savior") was a natural, being the most common name for men, exceeded only by Mary given to one in four girls. (The entire absence of other Jesuses in the gospels is another argument that they are wholly fictional: there should have been a pair of disciples Jesus, and a leper Jesus. Or two.) Its frequency IRL cannot have been accidental: Jews craved a savior the Christian cult was created to claim to have delivered.

I really enjoyed this, really interesting to hear. I think the textual variants are interesting, particularly if they affect interpretation and there are some significant ones. I also think textual variation could have some implications for your argument against the Q hypothesis. Often as you say the "primitivity" of the material in Luke is one of the arguments for Q, but as you point out 1) simpler sentences doesn´t mean more primitive and 2) Luke may well have had a different version of Matthew where those sentences were written in a more simple form. One thing I would like to point out as a linguist, is that word order changes are not necessarily neutral, it´s true that Koine Greek is a far more flexible language in terms of word order than English, but things like moving elements to the front of a sentence could be done to focus them, or make them the topic.

The pre-existing angelic figure stepping into flesh to be killed and, via blood-sacrifice, redeem humanity from Adam's original sin was shot through Judaic thought even before Paul's birth. So, that identification wasn't something that "happened quickly": it is the soil Christianity sprouted from. They had numerous names for the figure, including Anatole ("sprout") and Melchizedek, and a list of prophecies for it to fulfill that Paul quotes from frequently. The DSS even mentions it, a century earlier. Christianity's choice Jesus (lit. "God's savior") was a natural, being the most common name for male Jews of the day, exceeded in frequency only by Mary given to one in four girls. (The entire absence of other Jesuses in the gospels is another argument that they are wholly fictional: there should have been a pair of disciples Jesus, and a leper Jesus.) Its frequency cannot have been accidental. A long list of scholars explain this, including Beckwith, Bergsma, Boyarin, Brooke, and Brownlee. Other letters of the alphabet are also represented.

Doubting Jesus does not bring into doubt Peter, Paul, or the myriad Jameses: people mentioned as they are usually do exist, so you would need evidence they didn't. Centers of mystery cults all, howsoever mythical, get detailed biographies (plural) the way Jesus got, equally as full of fantastical events. In another installment you have Paul casually mentioning "the twelve", whom you there assume were disciples. But Paul never mentions disciples, only apostles, and those often. Apostles are defined by having had a vision of a resurrected Jesus. Where Paul cites Jesus, it is only ever the resurrected Jesus. Can we agree that these mentions don't count? 1 Clement is the same. Though it digs deep for iconic betrayals, there is no hint of awareness of Judas, and its Jesus only ever speaks via OT prophets.

If Luke“s Gospel is dependent on Mathew, how come we have a completely different birth narrative in Luke than Mathew? In my view those who think Luke knew Mathew have way much more explanation to do on so many verses than those who are for the existence of Q as there are only very few verses that may need explanation. For me it seems that we have two independent birth narratives with conflicting genealogy.

I am astonished to find you take 1Cor9:5 as Paul complaining that Jesus's half-brothers get a family allowance from the church alongside apostles and (even) Peter, rather than non-apostle church elders, who by his clear definition are fully-qualified Brothers. Surely he would have listed the least-deserving in such a complaint. Do no church officers merit any such support?

I would say there is a lot of bad mythicisim out there, i.e mythicism that´s just badly researched, makes unproven assertions (i.e Jesus is Horus). I however think that Carrier and Lataster have made a case that needs a lot more attention than it has received. One important point I think that Carrier makes is that Jesus is in a different reference class to ordinary people, i.e he´s a highly mythologised being. Most of those beings are not ultimately based on real people (you have a few exceptions like Midas and Imhotep) so the intial odds are against him being real (though not impossible at all). I agree with Carrier that we therefore need very very strong evidence that he was real to overcome those initial odds. I think he´s right that the Gospels are not terribly good evidence as they are too mythologised and we can´t be sure of anything in them (it comes down to Mark as the other synoptics+John are using Mark as a source, so they aren´t independent). I don´t think there´s any reliable method to untangle what is allegorical in Mark from what isn´t. I think ultimately it comes down to Paul´s letters, but plenty of scholars other than Carrier have argued that many passages could be read as referring to either heavenly or earthly events, i.e "rulers of this age". Terms like "brother of the lord" have been argued to be cultic titles too, Even terms like "buried" or "honoured with funerary rites" could have been understood as happening in the heavens, i.e Adam being buried in the heavens in the life of Adam and Eve. I call myself "minimal mythicist", as a bit of a pun, first in reference to Carrier´s hypothesis but also that I think the evidence somewhat points in that direction, but I think it´s perfectly possible there was a historical Jesus. It could be apotheosis, but euhemerism is more common in the Ancient World. Indeed, one important point Carrier makes is that the name "Yeshua" may well be one that he adopted, he may not have been born with that name, but adopted it as a religious leader.

Nice little piece! I always find it wonderful how alternative translations can make a huge difference. Absolutely no problem carrying on traditions based on a possible misunderstanding though!

​ @Minimmalmythicist One problem with your argument is that Genres can be quite fluid and as Walsh and others have shown, the Gospel of Mark shares characteristics with other genres, including novels of the time. Dennis Macdonald has shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Gospel of Mark is using the narrative structure of the narrative. Also that letter from Pilate is a fake. @Minimmalmythicist wrong, Of course genres are fluid and literature contains all genre, The Post Modern Historic Deconstruction restricts the genres to the either/or paradigm of dueling dialectics of Idealism and Materialism (not to be confused with Empiricism) The Gospel of Mark is a formal military intelligence appreciation of what Cornelius had assembled around the testimony of Peter and John Mark in a report up his chain of command to Theophilus, who has a role more or less identical to George Smiley in John LeCarre's MI6. The autograph was in Latin, which is why the Greek translation is so coarse. The genre specific to the Gospel of Mark is Caesar's Commentaries. It's a military idiom throughout, Cornelius is the common denominator of the Gospels and Acts and the curator of the intelligence archives of the 10th Legion generally understood as Quelle. Which letter of Pilates is fake? Before I knew anything about Tertullian or the Gospel of Peter, I assumed Pilate would have reported the Resurrection, That's how the written documentation got started. The Roman soldiers had been keeping formal surveillance on John the Baptist before Jesus showed up, The demographics revealed in Mark 3:7 - 8. Cornelius calculates that approximately 30% of the Hebrew population was aligned with John the Baptist's Repentance movement before Jesus showed up and took command, The Roman soldiers called thsee Jesus Followers "Christians" because the common reference to Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. This is conveyed to Tiberius according to Tertullian and, at that point, Tertullian is the leading edge of systematic research into Christian origins, i.e. History, An axiom of the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction is that Harmonization is the enemy of Truth, which is bullshit. Harmonization and Truth are The One, Everything begins at the Cross, going backwards and forwards in time, Pilate's lost euangelion to Tiberius is outened in Mark 15:1 - 16:8, The literature tells us this is the first written record of Jesus as an official response to what else was contained in that letter, which has been preserved in the oral history of the Gospel of Peter. The Talking Cross is the subject of the report to Tiberius regarding the endorsement of the Jewish god of the Italian Regiment as an expression of Romans 13:1 - 7 and N/T. Wright's interpretation of Pauline Theology, This is what is available with the dialectical synthesis of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirt and the Historic Gestalt. The Post Modern Historic Deconstruction of the JEsus Seminar and the Pro-Life Solo Scriptura Calvinism excludes all those genres in order to control the narrative, Which offends me

Like Richard Carrier, Dr. Walsh is arguing from anachronism, The first time I encountered Richard Carriers critical historic method in action was a RUclips video of a lecture he gave on the Gospel of Mark and the thing that sticks in my mind was his comment that the ending of Mark an 16:8 "is no way to end a Gospel". what I expected to follow was an analysis of why it had to end the way it did, Instead, Carrier proceeded to describe how he would have ended it conform with the Greco-Roman novels at the time. I mean, The Gospel of Mark creates the genre of Gospel. By definition, the Gospel of Mark is a perfectly formed example of the Gospel. But the whole Bart Ehrman-Jesus Seminar cottage industry of debunking Jesus shares this trope, including Dr. Robyn Walsh. ' Now, fitting within the clutter of Dr. Walsh's process of analysis, what she is missing is Caesar's Commentaries, which is the style and method of narrative of the Gospel of Mark, which was written by Cornelius, the centurion featured in Acts 10, The Gospel of Mark is an expansion and explanation of the euangelion Pilate sent to Tiberius immediately after the resurrection of Jesus, which is the first written record of Jesus in 33 CE, which is the date of Jesus's crucifixion according to astronomy. The 23 references to euangelion in the Gospels is a short hand reference to Mark 15:1 - 16:8 but refers specifically to the Gospel of Peter, We know from Tertullian that Tiberius received an intelligence report from Judea that included the Roman slang for Jesus Followers, "Christians" that he, Tiberius, introduced to Roman societ along with a proposal to elevate Jesus into the Roman Parthenon of legal deities. The Senate refused according to Tertullian because they weren't advised prior to the proposed legislation It is my observation that the translation of euangelion as Gospel had shifted meaning from the specifics of the contents pf that communication to the generic understand that is characterized by the title of the 60s hippy stage play GodSpell., Dr. Walsh is proceeding more from the basis of Jesus Christ, Super Star, but the point is that the meaning of the actual employment of euangelion in Acts 15:7, when Peter is vetting Paul's version of the Resurrection, and by Paul 19 times in his Epistles is the Gospel of Peter meaning of the euangelion and in Mark 1:1. What Cornelius is saying in this first line of Mark is that what follows is all the shit that came before Mark 15. For all intents and purposes. Cornelius is Quelle, He is the senior centurion in the region and he draws from the eye witness spy reports of the 10 Legion they capture about Jesus between the time He first appeared above the Roman military horizzon when He took command of John the Baptist's Followers until he was dropped in Pilates Lap three eyars later. There is no invention or literary conceit in the Gospel of Mark but details Cornelius expects Theophilus to take literally. Which he does. And Cornelius is the common denominator in all four Gospels and Acts, and provides the eye witness portrait of Pilate with Jesus Because Cornelius was in the room with Pilate when Jesus was being interrogated. Cornelius knew Jesus personally and is the centurion justified by faith in Matthew 6:4 - 13. So, in effect, Cornelius defines the genre of Gospel of Mark as derivative of Pilate's euanglion and everything else is derivative of the Gospel of Mark. Including Paul's theology,

I´m not so sure on the evidence that this James was the brother of Jesus. Indeed, one thing frustrating and fascinating about Paul as a source is he is quite ambiguous, at least what has survived of him. R,e your reference to the term "buried", could it not be there to highlight that he definitely was dead?

Another problem I´ve just thought of in the "primitivity" argument is that maybe the texts are too interpolated to know for certainty what is primitive and what isn´t-

As someone with an amateur interest, I prefer your explanation to the others. One issue I have, as you have said in other recordings, is quite simply that I don´t know that you can be sure that the Lukean material is more "primitive", just because it uses simpler structures, less details etc. Quite often when you redact a document you make it more simple rather than more elaborate. I also don´t think Q would necessarily be that useful if it did exist in getting back to original Jesus sayings and teachings. It´s quite possibly based on things people thought they saw in revelations

I really enjoyed this. It´s always interesting to hear R.F Walsh talk about her work and it strikes me just how neglected the Greco-Roman influences on Jewish culture of that time are in Biblical studies. Dennis Macdonald´s work is also really interesting and it´s a shame in my view, that there are still people who dispute what he is saying. Perhaps a couple his examples of mimesis are that strong, but the basic hypothesis has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in my view, I think he has shown that Mark is using the narrative structure of the Odyssey and there are so many parrallels that it cannot be a coincidence.

You are a genuinely authentic human being. An outstanding scholar who makes the world a better place. Pity you have to tear people down in debates sometimes like the chap who believes the shroud of Turin is a real image of Jesus. (Father Andrew Dalton - who seems like a great guy very intense and passionate)

Another ABBA fan

I had to stop by and re-listen to this Podcast. I wish I could take your Noncanonical classes. ❤

HAVE FUN!!! ❤️🅰️🅱️🅱️🅰️❤️

Have fun🎉

What a lovely gentleman

Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola's Oration of the Dignity of Man is some powerful writing. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!

Very interesting episode! I'm glad I've discovered you and your channel

I love your content and the way you make this research accesible, and this a fascinating topic. Many, many thanks and as a physicist I hope to make a time machine one day to see whether Jesus actually claimed to be the messiah 😜

Matthew likely gets his κρασπέδου from Mark’s κρασπέδου in Mark 6:56. Kingdom of Heaven can very well be anti-temple rhetoric that God and his kingdom is in heaven and not at the temple in Jerusalem (or any temple that some might hope to rebuild)