Announcement

Posted on by

The story so far…

While he used to argue vociferously that the gospels are history – remember they must be history because Pilate and Herod are in them? – our resident apologist has backed away from this position. He says now they’re not history as such but are only ‘like’ history, which means they’re ‘historical but not written as histories’, whatever this means. He derides the likes of Ehrman and Tabor for their inability to recognise this (newly invented) fact. These no-nothings make a category error when they confuse the gospels with history.

I suspect Don wants to reclassify the gospels because he recognises they make rather poor history. It’s safer to pretend they’re designed to be something else, something that doesn’t require external evidence to verify it: ‘announcement’, for example.

This, however, merely sidesteps the question of where the gospel writers got their information from. Don has previously argued that the gospels are based on eye-witness reports, Peter’s dictation to Mark and a reliable oral tradition. But conjecture like this is only necessary if the gospels are history. If they’re not, but are ‘announcement’ instead, then their sources need  be neither historically reliable nor demonstrable.

If the accounts are ‘announcement’ rather than history then where does their ahistorical, announced information come from? Fortunately, Mark gives us a clue:

To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “‘they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven’” (Mark 4:11-12, referencing and misquoting Isaiah 6:9)

In fact, the gospels’ ‘announcement’ is conveyed by a story constructed from supposed prophecies from Jewish scripture and the immediate concerns of the early cult communities, expressed in metaphors of the gospel writers’ making. All of the internal evidence supports this conclusion. In fact, the source of the gospels’ material is the same as Paul’s and that of other writers in the New Testament. Here’s how the great, self-appointed apostle puts it: 

My gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ [is] according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, but now is made visible through the prophetic scriptures and is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith. (Romans 16:25-26)

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3-8)

Compare this with:

Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing. (Gospel Jesus in Luke 14:21)

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Gospel Jesus in Luke 24:25-27)

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (Gospel Jesus in Luke 24: 25-27)

(Paul) reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,” he said. (Fictional Paul in Acts 17:2-3)

The revelation of the Messiah and the secrets and mysteries revealed to Paul and the other apostles are ‘explained and proved’ in their entirety by ancient scripture. But, these scriptures in and of themselves do not prophesy the kind of Messiah the early apostles envisaged. Rather, the scriptures are retrospectively pressed into service to match the revelations of the Messiah that Paul and the others experienced.

This is Don’s ‘announcement’: secrets and mysteries founded not on history but on revelation expressed through metaphor and the misapplication of scripture.

35 thoughts on “Announcement”

  1. When Don declared that he’d never said the gospels were “history” and announced they were in fact “announcements,” I pointed out that the word he was looking for was “gospel” as Romans had long created such stories for their revered heroes.

    Anyway. I came across a paper comparing the gospel of Mark and one of these Roman gospels, the Priene Calendar Inscription. Info on the inscriptions can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_Inscription_of_Priene

    The paper, Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel by Craig A. Evans can be found here: https://read-scripture.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/evans-priene-inscription.pdf

    Don‘s top qualification as an apologist is his willingness to lie about anything at anytime to support his positions and . . . two! . . . Don’s top two qualifications as an apologist are his willingness to lie about anything at anytime to support his positions and his unique failures at Englishing despite continually bragging about how good he is at it.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Very interesting articles. Yet another example of how derivative Mark’s gospel is.

      Though it’s possible Mark came first and the Romans simply copied from him. Yes, that’ll be it. You can bet on it.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

    • Kos:
      “Don‘s top qualification as an apologist is his willingness to lie about anything at anytime to support his positions and . . . two! . . . Don’s top two qualifications as an apologist are his willingness to lie about anything at anytime to support his positions and his unique failures at Englishing despite continually bragging about how good he is at it.”

      Exactly!
      Have you noticed that Don has an answer for virtually any question, or contradiction?
      The dictionary defines this person as a “know it all”…a person who refuses to admit they may not know something…and lying is part of the modus operandi.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • There is also a term in English – a Clever Dick.
        Although under the circumstances perhaps the word ‘clever’ may be unnecessary?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You’ll all be super excited to learn that while Dick Don has been quiet on here of late, he’s been busy setting up a website to supplement his blog. Now he’s got even more ways of taking Jesus to the world*.

        I’d provide a link but I just can’t bring myself to do it.

        *Iris and Seymour Peabody.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Don is making another website?

        Finally, as prophesied, the word of the lord can spread to all nations.

        This may well be the last piece of the puzzle that’s been holding up Jesus’ return.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Kos. I was not aware of Craig Evens’ paper. The parallel between the “announcement” of Augustus Ceasar and the intent of Mark in his Gospel is obvious. (I guess you’ve come to agree that the genre of Mark is announcement and that there is in fact such a genre.)

      I like the similarity in point 8 where Evens compares the parousia of Augustus and the coming of the Son of Man in Mark 13.

      I also like Evens’ reference to the “announcement” in Isaiah of the parousia.(It appears Isaiah really is the pattern, not the eunangelion of August.

      So, Evens sees the “announcement” in Mark 1:1 and throughout Mark as a counter to the announcement of Augustus. “ he has
      boldly announced to the Roman world that the good news for the world
      began not with Julius Caesar and his descendants, but with Jesus Christ, the
      true son of God.”

      Okay. I’m in agreement with that. Three thumbs up!

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Don: (I guess you’ve come to agree that the genre of Mark is announcement and that there is in fact such a genre.)

        No, Don. I’m saying what you are calling “announcement” already had a name long before the New Testament gospels. That name is “gospel” (“euaggelion” transliterated from Greek).

        These Roman gospels mythologized actual humans as a form of propaganda. The New Testament gospels continue that tradition.

        Don: (It appears Isaiah really is the pattern, not the eunangelion of August.

        No. The paper says that Isaiah was used as well as the eunangelion of Augustus. As has been pointed out many times before, all the gospel writers turned to the Hebrew Bible for bits they could add to the mythology they were creating.

        Like

      • Kos I’m saying what you are calling “announcement” already had a name long before the New Testament gospels.

        What difference doe that make? It is the same name euangelion. And it presents Jesus in the same terms, as King, and attended by supernatural events – which in this case were actual, experienced by many, and reported as real events in all four Gospels and referenced in the Babylonian Talmud. That is significantly more impressive than Augustus’ attendant miracles.

        Since it is primarily Mark who writes in the genre of gospel or announcement and for a Roman audience, it is particularly interesting that he has the background of the euangelion of Augustus. It would have been understood and read as an announcement of great significance by Romans.

        FYI John wrote in the genre of defense or apology. Notice that he is most interested in presenting Jesus as the Son of God.

        Luke wrote Luke-Acts in the genre of history. Notice his very typical historian’s preface. Notice his connections of the events with specific dates and people and places. That is what was expected of a history.

        Matthew wrote in the genre of prophecy. Notice how often he refers to prophecies of the Messiah. He is connecting those OT prophecies with their fulfillment AND he is doing what the prophets did; he is declaring the word of God and God’s directions to his people. Notice the ending. It is a command to make disciples everywhere they went. None of the other Gospels do that.

        Each, of course, based their work on the very real reality of one man named Jesus. One man, several roles: Messiah (Matthew), Savior (Luke), Servant King (Mark), Divine (John).

        Like

      • Probably Don: What difference doe that make? It is the same name euangelion.

        I’ll remind you, Don, that you are the one hung up on what to call the gospels. Years ago you insisted on calling them “biographies.” Then it was “histories.” And now you’re trying “announcements.”

        You seem to be on a quest to find the one English word that will magically transform your Big Book of Make Believe into reality. You insisted that because the gospels were biographies their contents were true. The same for histories. Histories = true. And now it’s announcements = true.

        I’m suggesting we just use “gospels.” It’s an ancient Roman genre in which authors mythologize their heroes (whether real or imagined) with super powers and amazing accomplishments. The New Testament gospels seem to fit the genre well. So well in fact that the church fathers used the word themselves.

        Probably Don: And it presents Jesus in the same terms, as King, and attended by supernatural events –

        Actual history records that Jesus was never king of anywhere. And the inclusion of supernatural events should clue any self-proclaimed expert of English that this is myth – it’s fairytale, it’s fantasy.

        Probably Don: – which in this case were actual, experienced by many, and reported as real events in all four Gospels and referenced in the Babylonian Talmud.

        Fantasy is usually (always?) represented as actual events. Reread Dracula or Frankenstein. They’re presented as real life events. It’s up to the reader to understand it’s fantasy. (Hint: magic/supernatural is the clue).

        The Talmud’s Jesus and the gospel’s Jesus lived 100 years apart. Do they represent the same guy or two different magic men? Impossible to tell. The Talmud is full of sages doing magic. Just more fantasy.

        Probably Don: That is significantly more impressive than Augustus’ attendant miracles.

        It’s really not. It is exactly the same. Bullshit written by fanbois.

        ————————————

        Maybe your time would be better spent, Don, presenting actual evidence for your claims rather than trying find the magic word that will make the Bible’s bullshit real.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kos: “You seem to be on a quest to find the one English word that will magically transform your Big Book of Make Believe into reality. ”

        I am reading and reevaluating.

        Kos: “Actual history records that Jesus was never king of anywhere.”

        But that is not really the point. He was announced as king by the Gospel writers. King is what Messiah means.

        Kos: “And the inclusion of supernatural events should clue any self-proclaimed expert of English that this is myth – it’s fairytale, it’s fantasy.”

        Unless it isn’t. Youn are continuing to assume that the circular argument is true: There are no miracles or supernatural entities THEREFORE these reports are fantasies.

        I have yet to see any defense of that assumption.

        Kos: “The Talmud’s Jesus and the gospel’s Jesus lived 100 years apart. ”

        And you know this how? My own analysis of the report in the Talmud is that it is a later inclusion to discredit the claims of the New Testament for Jesus the miracle worker (sorcery) and claimant of divinity (Son of God). The similarity in virtually every detail to the charges the Jews brought against Jesus are the same. The method of execution is the same. The date and circumstances are the same.

        The only thing that differs is the procedure of announcing the conviction and allowing forty days for anyone to come forward with a defense. But that is an attempt to cover their backs. I know of no case in history, Jewish literature, or the Bible when that happened.

        And that is he problem. There is no case in history of anything like this happening except in the case of Jesus. Do you? Baseless claims don’t work anymore than baseless assumptions.

        The real tell, however, is the date and circumstances. It was on the eve of Passover. That is one of the most unlikely times for the Jews to execute anyone and hang them on a stake. If they had waited forty days already, another week would not have mattered. And it would have avoided the violation of the Passover festival holyday.

        The whole thing is an attempt to exonerate themselves of the accusations made by Christians. But why, if there was no execution of Jesus?

        Like

      • Don: Every version of the story says there was huffing and puffing and the house was blown down. All versions agree on that. It’s indisputable.

        Well you can’t argue with that kind of logic. You win, Don.

        Like

      • kos: The Talmud’s Jesus and the gospel’s Jesus lived 100 years apart.

        Don: And you know this how?

        From the scholars I’ve read on the subject. Last I researched this Jesus’ death in the Talmud was placed in 75 BCE. It appears today the scholars have settled on 66 BCE.

        Luckily, Dr. A. Jordan author of the book Jesus the Nazarene: The Talmud and the Founder of Christianity also has a blog and he’s covered this for us in his post Why does the Talmud Place Jesus in the First Century BCE? (Found here: https://yaakovavraham.wordpress.com/2022/10/17/why-does-the-talmud-place-jesus-in-the-first-century-bce/?fbclid=IwAR2QX2LMWnnpBlXBTp0PyIyGVg2zSKREEVa5QDToVoW1klYa_dwAZ9rdD0E )

        In the first paragraph he tells us, “Typically, the Talmud’s narrative is understood to place Jesus during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus with his death shortly after that king’s death in 66 BCE.”

        In the post he examines seven reasons why this might be the case. I’ll leave that as homework for any that are interested.

        Don: My own analysis of the report in the Talmud is that it is a later inclusion to discredit the claims of the New Testament . . .

        Wait one cherry picking second there, Don.

        I distinctly remember you telling us that the Jews had this amazing oral tradition that was able to accurately transmit the books of the Hebrew bible for hundreds and thousands of years without error until the books were finally written down.

        You said the Christians inherited this ability and used it to keep the oral traditions of Jesus until they were finally written down by the gospel writers.

        But the Talmud is the same – an oral tradition of the Jew’s history and teachings kept until they were finally written down (some in 200 CE and some in 500 CE).

        But now you’re telling us that this super accurate oral transmission can be, and was(!), corrupted in the case of the stories of Jesus.

        But if that’s possible, surely the Hebrew bible could have been corrupted just as easily. As could have the Christian New Testament.

        I think you’ve given way the farm, Don. We can’t trust any of it!

        Like

      • I always appreciate the research you put into our discussions. I’ll 5take the time to read the articles you’ve linked.

        In the meantime, I wonder if I said something as contrary to what I think as: the Jews had this amazing oral tradition that was able to accurately transmit the books of the Hebrew bible for hundreds and thousands of years without error until the books were finally written down.

        I am not sure what books you are talking about – or I was talking about.

        Writing was developed somewhere in the mid-4th century B.C. From that point on, I would think the books in the OT were preserved in writing, though not necessarily in the form found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

        Before that the chapters 2 through approx. 11 of Genesis were transmitted orally. But that is hardly an amazing feat. Around the world there are folktales/folkstories that have survived for many thousands of years. There are folkstories about the floods in the Pacific Northwest that originated in about 12,000 B.C and were preserved without writing.

        The primeval stories of Genesis are like that.

        Without error? We can’t know, can we?

        Kos: “You said the Christians inherited this ability and used it to keep the oral traditions of Jesus until they were finally written down by the gospel writers.”

        I don’t think it was unique to Christian writers. But the time frame was not very great – maybe 40 years – and the stories were told and retold by the same people, the Apostles, through that time. It was not a game of telegraph. I don’t think that is remarkable.

        Kos: “But now you’re telling us that this super accurate oral transmission can be, and was(!), corrupted in the case of the stories of Jesus.”

        Intentionally corrupted in an attempt to exonerate the Jews from acting illegally, as they were accused of by Christians.

        The Yeshu story bears all the marks of a later insertion in the Talmud. It is simply different in style from the text before and after. That is the best reason NOT to see it as a report of a Yeshu who lived 66-75 B.C. And what would be the point anyway? It is a late composition. But my point was that it is unnecessary unless there was a Yeshu they wanted to discredit.

        Like

      • They [the Talmuds] preserve the authentic life of Jesus over the Christians who do not. The Christians say that the Jews killed Jesus? The Rabbis say, Yes we did because he was a magician and idolater and the Sanhedrin executed him. The Christians say that the Jews rejected Jesus? The Rabbis say he rejected us and left the ways of Torah.

        Okay that makes sense and fits the historical context of the insertion of the story into the Babylonian Talmud.

        Beyond that, the author of “A Jewish View” doesn’t make sense. His speculation – and that is the best that can be said of it – is convoluted and inconclusive. Noted in his conclusion:

        In any case, it is hard to know exactly why the Talmud places Jesus in the first century BCE and it is one of the more intriguing aspects of the Jesus narrative in the Talmud.

        He is not really, defending the Talmud’s report of the Jews putting Jesus’ death after the king’s death in 66 B.C. He is wondering why the Talmud did so, imply that the Talmud was wrong.

        Like

      • Anonymous:
        “Each, of course, based their work on the very real reality of one man named Jesus.”

        Evidence that Jesus existed please.

        Like

      • How about the multiple reports of him in the Gospels, in the letters of Paul, which include the testimony of the Apostles in about 40 A.D.

        Like

      • The multiple reports of miracles. No, the same reports of multiple miracles duplicated, triplicated. Not the same thing at all. No external evidence, no affirmation anywhere other than in the same duplicated reports.

        Paul does not refer to any details whatsoever of Jesus’ earthly existence. He records no miracles apart from the resurrection, which is devoid of any ‘historical’ detail: no empty tomb, no angels, no women or disciples visiting it, none of the sightings of the resurrected Jesus later invented for the gospels, etc. Paul speaks only of a celestial being he calls the Christ.

        There’s no testimony of the apostles in Acts, written, at the earliest, around AD80 when most of the apostles (if by this you mean ‘disciples’, who are never mentioned as such) would be dead, and widely acknowledged by those who know better than you – people whose existence you deny – as a work of fiction.

        You have no evidence that the miracles of the gospels ever happened. They’re not history or fact. They’re fiction; metaphor. You have been told this numerous times. If you bothered to read more widely, you would find it is the view of most scholars.

        End of discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Neil: Paul does not refer to any details whatsoever of Jesus’ earthly existence.

        Don: You mean besides that he was born a de3scendent of David and Abraham, that he lived in poverty, that he had a brother James, that he lived a life of humility and meekness, that he ministered primarily to the Jews, that he washed the feet of the disciples, that he instituted a memorial meal on the night he was betrayed, that he was cruelly treated and gave testimony before Pilate, that he was killed by the Jews of Judea, that he was buried, and that he rose from the dead. (Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History p. 57-58.)

        The last I think might qualify as a miracle.

        That almost sounds like a biography in brief. Well, Paul doesn’t say what he had for lunch on Tuesday.

        Like

      • Hasn’t this already been answered? (Yes.)

        Almost all of the information you supply comes from Mark’s gospel. That’s the only source for most of it. Paul mentions ‘James, the brother of the lord’ (could be any fellow-Christian) and the resurrection. That’s it. See my response to Don with regard to this ‘miracle’.

        There is absolutely no confirmation outside the Bible for any of the ‘facts’ you present.

        Like

      • Except that Paul wrote before Mart wrote his gospel.

        Hey!!! Maybe Mark copied Paul.

        Like

      • Exactly.

        Paul first with no information about an earthly Jesus.

        Mark several years later with stories embodying Paul’s teaching.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Probably Don: Hey!!! Maybe Mark copied Paul.

        Many scholars say that Mark is from the Pauline school (notice: not Peter’s).

        Of course, there’s not a lot to “copy” from Paul. But he does follow Paul’s example that Jesus is to be found in the scriptures (not from any witnesses). And in his portrayal of the disciples not getting it. Paul was always going on about how the other apostles didn’t understand anything.

        Oh, and he does copy (and embellish) the Lord’s Supper from Paul.

        Liked by 1 person

      • How about the lack of proof, validation, verification for any of those reports, writings, or testimonies you mention … EXCEPT to those who believe in a multi-thousand year old book that has so many holes that is looks like someone used it for target practice.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Anonymous:
        “attended by supernatural events – which in this case were actual, experienced by many, and reported as real events in all four Gospels and referenced in the Babylonian Talmud. ”

        Define “supernatural” please.

        Like

      • Tough questions…I know, but I’m so tired of playing these semi-historical, metaphorical games where the conclusions are:

        Yes, supernatural miracles occurred!

        I call bullshit!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Call it want you want. They were reported as miracles by everyone who mentioned them. Even by those who were hostile witnesses.

        Like

      • Anonymous:
        “Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History p. 57-58.)”

        “Logic of history”…where have we heard that before?

        You’re right kos…it’s Don!

        But why?

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.