Protective Anonymity
On page 200 of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses', Professor Richard Bauckham makes up a story about the young man in Mark 14 being Lazarus raised from the dead. He also makes up a claim that Mark did not say this young man was Lazarus because Lazarus was a wanted man and so could not be named by Mark.
The anonymous author of Luke had a very clever idea to make sure Lazarus was not killed for the crime of being raised from the dead. He turned Lazarus into a character in a parable, so that any government officials who read his book would think that Lazarus was a fictional character and so not try to kill him.
That was a clever idea by Luke wasn't it?
Luke also turned the fig-tree that Jesus blasted for not bearing fruit into a parable of a fig-tree that did not bear fruit.
Perhaps the fig-tree also needed 'protective anonymity'?
Or perhaps characters and stories about Jesus wandered between real-life and parables depending upon the spin individual Gospel writers wanted to put on them.
The anonymous author of Luke had a very clever idea to make sure Lazarus was not killed for the crime of being raised from the dead. He turned Lazarus into a character in a parable, so that any government officials who read his book would think that Lazarus was a fictional character and so not try to kill him.
That was a clever idea by Luke wasn't it?
Luke also turned the fig-tree that Jesus blasted for not bearing fruit into a parable of a fig-tree that did not bear fruit.
Perhaps the fig-tree also needed 'protective anonymity'?
Or perhaps characters and stories about Jesus wandered between real-life and parables depending upon the spin individual Gospel writers wanted to put on them.
posted by Steven Carr at 12:47 AM
16 Comments:
I imagine oral traditions then were much like they are today: fish tales. This also reminds me of the chain emails that constantly get debunked on Snopes.
Lazarus was allegedly very famous, which is why Mark never named him, to protect his anonymity.
While, of course,oral tradition spread his name like wildfire among Christians so that Paul never needed to mention him as everybody already knew all about such stories.
Surely Bauckham's work is so bad that it brings Biblical scholarship into disrepute.
How can such a book be tolerated by the academic community?
When one is preaching to a choir of fellow mental gymnasts it's not difficult to imagine any sort of nonsense being accepted.
Good to see that you are getting in the habit of posting your thoughts on your blog, instead of posting what are really not your questions, but your views on other people's blog comments.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Hi Rich,
I assume that mainstream scholars are rushing to your site to give their reasons for believing that Judas (for example) existed, and that the Gospels are not pure fiction?
I wonder why an amateur like me is told to 'shut up', rather than having his errors pointed out?
Dear Steven Carr,
I am not sure what you are asking. My comment was towards the fact that you posted a blog essay here on your blog. I think that is good. If you have something to say, and it seems you do, this would be the place to do it. I was simply encouraging you since I noticed that you did do so. Look forward to seeing more of your thoughts.
I say this because I have noticed that you have made comment entries on other people's blogs that to me seem more like blog posts, or what I call "thesis posts" rather than comments. And I have always thought that instead of posting your thesis thoughts on other people's blogs, that you should be posting your thoughts here on your blog.
Regarding your question about scholars. I only know one scholar personally. I don't think he comes to with my personal blog, or the webulite.com site that I help with very often. I know that in the older manifestation of it, I had given him a log in, but I noticed he had not used it much, so when I did some major changing, I did not even migrate his username over. So, no, I don't think he is rushing to my site to even read it, let alone tell me things. If he wants to talk to me, he generally emails me.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Hi Folks,
Steven Carr
"On page 200 of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses', Professor Richard Bauckham makes up a story about the young man in Mark 14 being Lazarus raised from the dead.
Actually Steven Carr is making up the words of Richard Bauckham. Bauckham says that this is a "suggested identitification" referencing a paper by S. J. Haren. Richard Bauckham simply says this "could be right" and that "no degree of certainty is possible" and then references an alternate by Grassi that is totally different.
Such mangling of a written presentation can bring blog and atheist scholarship into disrepute.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Oh dear.Is Avery denying what is in black and white?
Avery is up to his old tricks of denying anything an atheist says....
Bauckham says 'it would fit very well indeed', and distinguishes this identification of the young man as being in a separate category to 'unnecessary speculation',and that there is 'less to be said' Grassi's claim.
Unless Avery is claiming that Bauckham agrees that this identification has just been made up by people?
No, Avery is just automatically gainsaying anything an atheist says, even if anybody with even a basic understanding of English can read what Bauckham says and that Bauckham is just throwing out any old rubbish, and claimimg 'it could be right'.
Hi Folks,
:) Tsk Steven. Polemic does not mask pseudo-scholarship referencing.
The "unnecessary speculation" was simply a discarding of an idea that Bauckham considered nonsensical or irrelevant, about the linen garment being the shroud of Lazarus. Simply saying that we can consider this identification but should not bother with fanciful side-idea B.
Note that you fabricated the idea that Bauckham "makes us" this story. You do not deny your fabrication.
Bauckham not only does not make it up .. he basically gives it mild consideration -
"Another suggested identification of
the young man, which would fit very well indeed with our argument about "protective anonymity," is with Lazarus.**
** M. J Haren, The Naked Young Man: A Historian s Hypothesis on Mark 14 51-52 Bib 84 (2003) 530-531.
Steven, you really should examine your own writing and scholarship representations before you get petulant about supposed mistreatment on blogs. Surely this type of blatant misrepresentation, unto agenda, is not likely to open many doors on scholarship blogs.
Tips du jour:
Keep in mind that
A) "(proper, sensible, for consideration) speculation" (as contrasted to unnecessary speculation)is not insisting on an idea as truth .. and
B) When an idea is referenced from another paper, it is not "made up" by the person doing the referencing.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Oh dear. Avery is making an idiot of himself,denying the words on the pages of Bauckham's book.
It seems Bauckham is filling his book with ideas that spring to mind, giving them 'mild consideration'.
But not even Avery can produce a word of Bauckham's book where there is any evidence for this idea.The best Avery can do is claim that somebody other than Bauckham made it up.
It could be right that Avery is an idiot.
I merely give the idea mild consideration. It is unncessary speculation that he wear's women's clothes but the idea that he is nuts would 'fit very well' with our previous ideas about Avery.
Avery cannot complain about this malign, unwarranted slander that I just wrote as all I am doing is repeating the phraseology of Bauckham - phraseology that Avery himself claims is 'not insising on an idea as truth'.
Hi Folks,
Readers can easily choose between the Stevem Carr vapid attempts at insult-polemics (pretty lame, Steven) contra the exposure of fabrications in his writing ! Simple enuf.
And I would consider it a compliment if Steven Carr considers me an "idiot" .. although he might be looking for an excuse to censor :) .
Steven, when you get a chance, please let us know what you think of Luke-Acts historicity in general, per the details examined by William Ramsey. Asked on the previous blog.
Shalom,
Steven Aery
Haren's article can be found Here
It is , of course, utter garbage.
'If the figure is to be identified as Lazarus, one would have to accept that Lazarus in the Garden was actually dressed for conscious effect Lazarus dressed in that manner could in context only advertise his remarkable personal history, which was causing such excitement in the city.'
I guess this Lazarus guy wore amazing clothes so that he could enjoy 'protective anonymity'
Is that the Luke/Acts who used Josephus for a source, and has Roman officials apparently totally unaware that Paul was the follower of a crucified rebel?
Or the 'Luke' who only has one date in his entire Gospel and that is nothing to do with Jesus?
Or the Luke who stole stories from the Frauds and Lies and passed them off as stories about Jesus?
Or the Luke who airbrushed from history any notion of Jesus having a brother called James?
Or the Luke who it seems took the figure of Lazarus, a person raised from the dead that people still did not believe, and made him into a parable with a figure called Lazarus who says that people will still not believe even if they see someone raised from the dead?
HARDEN
'It is his naked escape that has been held above to guarantee his historicity and his naked escape is the result of his spare garb.'
CARR
It says a great deal for Bauckham that even he was not able to quote this rubbish as 'evidence' for historicity.
Even Bauckham had the sense not to quote too much from the articles he was referencing.
Hi Folks,
Nice to see that you agree with Bauckham that it is better to avoid theories of no substance.
On Luke's historicity I see that you went all over the map, have you even read the dozens of points mentions by William Ramsey ?
And did you catch up on the Theophilus proposal yet.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Post a Comment
<< Home