Vorkosigan

No idea. We have the texts of the Synoptics, so we know it happened. I'm not interested in that aspect of the problem. For me the issue is recovering the original text of Mark. Toto has informed you above, I see.

See the research on the famous Bethsaida Section (Mark 6:45-8:26) that begins and ends with visits to Bethsaida.

I'm sorry. Is English not your first language? What I said was that the editor had made changes that spoiled it but the original structure is still there to see. I notice that you left that sentence out of your bit of quote mining.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller

My comments weren't directed against his point that there may or may not have been inaccuracies or short-comings to Ehrman's book. I just have an aversion towards partisanship. He just seems too excited and too upset by the fact that Ehrman dared to argue that there was a historical Jesus. There's a lot of people who hold that view. Most people just assume that any sane person would come to the same conclusion. Ehrman is doing everybody who ever wrote a book on the mythical Jesus a favor by including them in one of his books. They should sell tens if not a few hundred books than more they would have otherwise.

The study of the gospel and related texts and traditions SHOULD BE dry and boring. I don't see why this topic is even that interesting. When it really comes down to it all we are debating is whether Mark was creating a myth and everyone else went along with it. How does this in itself prove or disprove that there was or wasn't a historical Jesus? I've never been able to get my head around that one.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm betraying my Semitic roots but a month or two Doherty was complaining that he wasn't making any money from his book. Now suddenly he's all over the internet. How's that a bad thing? Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton had to explicitly videotape themselves being penetrated to be famous. All these mythicist authors had to do is come down on the wrong side of an Ehrman book. What were the future sales of these books without being referenced in the new book by the number one bestselling author on the subject of Christian origins put out by Harper One? What's there to complain about? Do they really think that the world is somehow going to hear about what they have to say by the virtue of their arguments?

Oh I get it - if you spend years trying to uncover what the truth is then when you finally write a book about it the world will recognize your brilliance and name streets after you just because you figured out the truth. Bart Ehrman has demonstrated time and again what it takes to be a bestselling author - create controversy. Why not just ride the gravy train for as long as it lasts? No one is going to remember this debate in two years.

thief of fire

Thanks, I just wasn't sure what was being proposed
I'll give it some thought

aa5874

The Synoptics does NOT show that there was a source earlier than the short-ending gMark.

Toto has no evidence so why bring Toto into the argument.

The short-ending gMark is the earliest Jesus story in the Canon and based on the DSS, Philo and Josephus there is virtually ZERO expectation that there was any Jesus story before the Fall of the Temple or before the short-ending gMark.

thief of fire

Slow down a bit. You said the structure remained and could be seen but that it was no longer well organized. I left out the word "well".



http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....78#post7144478

The fact reamins that you are claiming the original well orgainized form is gone.
If you go back and read what I wrote, I didn't claim that you claimed the "structure" was no longer there, but that it was no longer organized (to the same degree).
I should have included the word "well" I guess.
But whatever, despite you attempts to divert attention here, my original point remains. You posit an editor getting a well orgainzed word and butchering it (to the point you call him an a$$hole) and the author apparently happy with that or unable to point out to the editor or anyone else to the point where anything was done, how he had organized it.
Maybe the editor had to kill the author before anyone circulated it?

jdl

I'm more familiar with his work on Luke but the approach seems to be basically the same in either case. Brodie argues that the backbone structure of the gospel is a rewrite of the OT Elijah-Elisha cycle with Jesus as the protagonist. He traces through the gospel those elements that conform to the OT narrative, then shows that what you're left with is a remarkably coherent story -- even more coherent than what we have now.

Brodie is not alone in trying to ferret-out an original, more coherent plot in the gospels. In Deconstructing Jesus, Price uses the less explicable features of the passion narrative -- such as the prayer in Gethsemane, Pilate's surprise that Jesus was dead after only six hours and the mention of Joseph of Arimathea as being rich -- to argue that Jesus originally survived the crucifixion. (And never mind the exhaustingly detailed Girardian analysis Price attempts, uncovering an original that has Jesus killed by the disciples.)

But nevermind. This would require a conspiracy to work.

Joseph