Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 04-24-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Tradition can be based squarely on reality, though it is not necessary. Anyone who believes the tradition solely from reception of the tradition, has no way of discernment. They can only believe that it happened.

If Mark wrote c. 70C.E., surely, he must have been in a position to interview or at least ask for information from people who knew what happened? Or are we placing Mark in the second century?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I pointed out that the writer(s) ordered received materials in sequences, two of which concern the feeding of the multitude. One version is of 5000 people the other is of 4000.

But spin, doublets are regarded as formulaic styles of heroic narratives in ancient literature. The article I have linked to argues that doublets (which we find in Odyssey among others), are a form of epic. Why do you believe that because materials were ordered, they therefore must have been received?
What do you mean when you say material were ordered? Even fiction has order. History has order. How does ordering confer traditional genesis to a narrative?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here we apparently have the one tradition which was carried in two directions, implying at least an originator, receivers who spread that tradition and a collector. One fragment of tradition points to a minimum chain of three links, though very probably more.

Are you referring to Matthew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The sequences themselves suggest the collecting of materials from earlier sources.

How so? Please explain.

JoeWallack · 04-24-2008, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have long thought that Mk originally ended with 13:37 and the injunction to keep watch (keep alert/be vigilant) a repetition of a verb used twice before in the same passage with a synonym as well. This suggests that someone else is responsible for the passion with its different construction methods and the stitching together of the two works. But even the little apocalypse shows signs of using earlier materials and having been written in order to bolster the hardships of a community under fire. For me, many signs of earlier sources.

JW:
I'm getting ahead of myself and the OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source Thread but I can't resist commenting here. It looks Likely that "Mark's" Watch Theme either has a source of 1 Thessalonians or they have a common source.

The clearer comparison is the Gethsemane Watch compared with the last and most important paragraph (instruction in the Greek):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

Quote:

14:31 But he spake exceedingly vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all.

32 And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray.

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled.

34 And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here, and watch.

35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.

37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?

38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

39 And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words.

40 And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they knew not what to answer him.

41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough; the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

42 Arise, let us be going: behold, he that betrayeth me is at hand.

43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

Verses:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...nians-asv.html

Quote:

5:1But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that aught be written unto you. 5:2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 5:3When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. 5:4But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief: 5:5for ye are all sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness; 5:6so then let us not sleep, as do the rest, but let us watch and be sober. 5:7For they that sleep sleep in the night: and they that are drunken are drunken in the night. 5:8But let us, since we are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation. 5:9For God appointed us not into wrath, but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:10who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. 5:11Wherefore exhort one another, and build each other up, even as also ye do. 5:12But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 5:13and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake. Be at peace among yourselves. 5:14And we exhort you, brethren, admonish the disorderly, encourage the fainthearted, support the weak, be longsuffering toward all. 5:15See that none render unto any one evil for evil; but always follow after that which is good, one toward another, and toward all. 5:16Rejoice always; 5:17pray without ceasing; 5:18in everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus to you-ward. 5:19Quench not the Spirit; 5:20despise not prophesyings; 5:21prove all things; hold fast that which is good; 5:22abstain from every form of evil. 5:23And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:24Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it. 5:25Brethren, pray for us. 5:26Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss. 5:27I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren. 5:28The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

JW:
In typical Markan fashion, the l.a. (little apocalypse) gives the F.O.R.M.u.l.a for Disciple Failure via Lecture and than the Narrative shows Peter as Fulfilling the requirements and meeting the Definition of failure. Using
1 Thessalonians as a background source to increase the meaning of "Mark" here we see that those who "sleep" during the night is Figurative for Unbelievers. Thus Peter is clearly categorized as an unbeliever by falling asleep via the emphasis formula of 3 times.

The Literary genius of "Mark" shows here with the Ironic contrast of Peter falling asleep and therefore failing to Watch so he can find Jesus (and by Narrative, losing Jesus) and at the same time, because he fell asleep, literally losing a Jesus he already had. The message is, without Faith those who had Jesus lost him and with Faith those who did not have Jesus will find him. Source = Paul.

Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-24-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Tradition can be based squarely on reality, though it is not necessary. Anyone who believes the tradition solely from reception of the tradition, has no way of discernment. They can only believe that it happened.

If Mark wrote c. 70C.E., surely, he must have been in a position to interview or at least ask for information from people who knew what happened? Or are we placing Mark in the second century?

But spin, doublets are regarded as formulaic styles of heroic narratives. The article I have linked to argues that doublets (which we find in Odyssey among others), are a form of epic. Why do you believe that because materials were ordered, they therefore must have been received?

Unfortunately (and as is apparent if your read the article you refer us to) what K. O'Nolan (the author of Doublets in the Odyssey) means by "doublet" ("a combination of two terms which are to all intents synonymous") is not what NT scholars, and especially Synoptic source critics, mean by "doublet", let alone what is identified within the synoptic tradition by these critics (and Spin) as "doublets".

Jeffrey

spin · 04-24-2008, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

On what grounds do you make this claim?

Basically just by reading them. Do you see someone other than Jesus being the focus of the gospels? If so, who (or what)?

Is a literal reading of an ancient text sufficient to understand the content of the text? Wouldn't you need to know substantially more about the cultural traditions of the area immediately prior to the writing, if you could established when the text was written?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I am not sure why since the gospels record Jesus to refer to the OT in His teachings and record that Jesus said that the OT spoke of Him. What would make you think that a person would have to be a mind reader to understand what he reads in the gospels?

We have a text by a writer, which tells the story of Jesus. Was it his intention to talk about a real past or an idealized one? a past more reflective of the writer's present? With classical writers we have external evidence which allows us to understand some of the intentions of those writers. But we have no external insights into the content of the gospels, ie no perspective to evaluate the veracity of the content or of the intentions of the writers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given the references to Christ in the writings of the church fathers (from the late first century)...

Which church fathers from the late 1st c.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

...which seem to draw from earlier writings of Christ and the earliest fragment of the Book of John (not the original, but a copy) dated from the late first century, the date of the gospels can be traced to the first century.

You seem to be referring to the John Rylands Papyrus P52, a tiny fragment whose dating even by the most hopeful standards is never earlier than 120 CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Papias, who said that he was a student of the apostle John, tells us that the gospels were written by an apostle or someone associated with an apostle.

Papias is a name found in later works. We have no texts by Papias, merely fragments cited for example by Eusebius in the fourth c.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess the scholars can argue this point. I doubt that we can.

Speak for yourself. I work with texts not with opinions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I do not see how this inhibits any of them from establishing historical content.

There is no sign of any eyewitness material in the gospels. The fact that Mt and Lk used Mk as their main source suggests that they are merely derivative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Each is a historical account and contains historical content. Maybe you meant historical context? Reference to Pilate identifies historical context.

We need verification from the period for the central material in the texts. The Satyricon mentions various members of the Julio-Claudian family, but that doesn't help us derive the veracity of the central material in the work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I would like to hear any evidence you have which will change the status of the gospels, so that they could be conceived of as we would classical sources such as Tacitus whose works are full of verifiable information, sources which offer problems of their own, but which leave know doubt that they contain the food for history.

I don't really see a problem here. Luke provides very specific information. What exactly are you requiring?

What could we make of Tacitus's account of the actions of Nero if we didn't have external materials to compare it with (eg coins, monuments, sculpture, inscriptions and much more from the specific period)? The value of Tacitus would be untestable on the subject and we cannot simply take Tacitus's word for it. The same goes with any report. The central material needs verification.

People can get things wrong. For example Tertullian believed that a certain Ebion was the founder of the Ebionite christian movement which was aberrant so Tertullian wrote against him. However, Tertullian was wrong: there was no Ebion. Yet the figure of Ebion evolved further from the time of Tertullian to that of Epiphanius from whom we learn that Ebion's hometown was Choseba -- not bad for someone who didn't exist!

We cannot simply take veracity for granted: it must be demonstrated. Luke may provide very specific information (well not that much really), but nothing from the central figures of his story that can be verified. So let me reiterate my original statement:

I would like to hear any evidence you have which will change the status of the gospels, so that they could be conceived of as we would classical sources such as Tacitus whose works are full of verifiable information, sources which offer problems of their own, but which leave know doubt that they contain the food for history.

spin

spin · 04-24-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have long thought that Mk originally ended with 13:37 and the injunction to keep watch (keep alert/be vigilant) a repetition of a verb used twice before in the same passage with a synonym as well. This suggests that someone else is responsible for the passion with its different construction methods and the stitching together of the two works. But even the little apocalypse shows signs of using earlier materials and having been written in order to bolster the hardships of a community under fire. For me, many signs of earlier sources.

JW:
I'm getting ahead of myself and the OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source Thread but I can't resist commenting here. It looks Likely that "Mark's" Watch Theme either has a source of 1 Thessalonians or they have a common source.

The clearer comparison is the Gethsemane Watch compared with the last and most important paragraph (instruction in the Greek):

Besides the same verb, the passages don't seem to have anything directly to do with each other, though if I'm right the second was written after the first by another author who picks up literary ideas from the first. One deals with the preparation of believers for the end. The second is about the vigil for Jesus's coming death. We don't need it as my presumed first writer has already prepared the reader for Jesus's death (8:31f, 9:30f). Everything has been prepared for by the time we reach 13:37.

spin

Solo · 04-24-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

I am not sure "fabricating" is the word as it implies telling something the author knows is not true. But I think, yes, Mark knew what he was doing and what he was doing was not putting down what Peter told him.

Not sure what you mean by this. There is no reason to believe that the author of the Gospel called Mark was actually named Mark or that he knew "Peter".

I was being sarcastic. Do you think Mark was being sarcastic when he wrote that Jesus family went out to seize him (3:21) as one out of his mind because people who thronged around him could not even eat ?

Quote:

I'm operating on a few "beliefs" which are based on my study of the materials.

#1) I don't think that any of the authors of any of the early Christian writings was intentionally trying to deceive anyone.

#2) I think that all of the authors truly believe in "Jesus", though they didn't all have the same concept of who or what Jesus was.

Granted.

Quote:

The Gospel of Matthew and John are both somewhat suspect, though I am certainly that the author of Luke thought that he was defiantly recording real history.

And yet Luke repeats (8:10) almost word for word Mark's Jesus' saying that the mysteries of the kingdom of God are given in parables, so they are incomprehensible to outsiders. Now, my reading of Mark 4:11 is that he himself wrote the gospel in such a way that its meanings are available only those who "to whom it was given", i.e. (,in modern terms,) had certain experiences with altered mentation which he allegorizes as the ministry and passion of Jesus.

Luke adds among other sayings, the parable of the prodigal son. In it, a son who squandered his share of father's fortune "in loose living" returns to his father in repentance, and is accepted back. The allusion is unmistakably to the legendary profligacy of manics. Luke makes it clear that the behaviour of the son was abnormal (15:17 But when he came to himself he said:"How many of my father's hired servants have bread to spare ...?"). That said Luke follows Mark's ethically "manic" Jesus who advises to exchange earthly possessions for treasure in heaven. Even if the context is different - Mark's Jesus ia sacrificial offering in the struggle of good and evil vs. Luke's Jesus rejection of the world as a stoic indifference to it - the latter evangelist follows the pattern of thought.

BTW, how does one interpret the "holding of the eyes" of the disciples on the road to Emmaus, which prevents them from recognizing the risen Lord, if one holds that Luke was simply redacting history what was laid in front of him ?

Quote:

Would that include "allusions" which you interpreted as Mark hinting at the destruction of Judea in the first Jewish War ?

I don't think that any of the other Gospel authors understood the Gospel called Mark. I don't think they took it as a story about the destruction of Jerusalem. I think they simply saw correlations between the Markan text and the Hebrew scriptures and they interpreted this as "prophecy fulfillment".

I have difficulty in puzzling out the difference you make between "literary allusion" and "prophetic fulfillment". You believe (with certain justification) that Mark's story of the fig tree uses Hosea 9, in which the tree withering to its roots, alludes to the destruction of Judea (Ephraim). So when Hosea says: Ephraim's sons, as I have seen, are destined for a prey, and Mark uses the chapter' imagery to have Jesus predict the mayhem in Judea that is four decades ahead of the time of the story, why should it not be an instance of prophetic fulfillment ?

Jiri

spin · 04-24-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Tradition can be based squarely on reality, though it is not necessary. Anyone who believes the tradition solely from reception of the tradition, has no way of discernment. They can only believe that it happened.

If Mark wrote c. 70C.E., surely, he must have been in a position to interview or at least ask for information from people who knew what happened? Or are we placing Mark in the second century?

First, I place the writing of Mark in Rome. (Amongst other things, calling the woman a "Syrophoenician", rather than a "Phoenician", would only make sense to a Roman audience.) And I gather from the torn temple curtain that we are after the time of the Jewish war and the destruction of the temple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

But spin, doublets are regarded as formulaic styles of heroic narratives in ancient literature. The article I have linked to argues that doublets (which we find in Odyssey among others), are a form of epic.

Are we talking about the same thing? My examples were the two feedings in Mk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Why do you believe that because materials were ordered, they therefore must have been received?

What do you mean when you say material were ordered? Even fiction has order. History has order. How does ordering confer traditional genesis to a narrative?

Parallel sequences of events are constructed in Mk:

Feeding [1) 5000 / 2) 4000] (clearly two forms of the same story)
Crossing lake on boat to [1) Bethsaida / 2) Dalmanutha]
Pharisaic dispute
Clarification on bread [1) of children / 2) of the feeding]
Healing with saliva [1) deaf / 2) blind] man

The ordering of these materials made up of small sections suggests that the materials already existed for the writer to order. How can you otherwise imagine the simplest way for the texts to have gained this form of parallel sequences? Ordering and jiggling point to construction from existing fragments rather than creation. This is reinforced by the two feedings being derived from the same source.

spin

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

#1) I don't think that any of the authors of any of the early Christian writings was intentionally trying to deceive anyone.

#2) I think that all of the authors truly believe in "Jesus", though they didn't all have the same concept of who or what Jesus was.

The Gospel of Matthew and John are both somewhat suspect, though I am certainly that the author of Luke thought that he was defiantly recording real history.

The authors of both Matthew and John engage in extensive use of "prophecy" creation by using the Hebrew scriptures.

What they were doing is clearly different from what the author of Mark was doing, but the question is, did they believe that the events that they wrote about actually happened in the real world?

Its impossible to say for sure 100%, but I have to imagine that they did think that these things really happened, at least within their frame of mind. I don't see their story elements as being much different than the writings of other apocalyptic writers of the time, and even people like the author of Revelation or Daniel. I think that in some sense those authors believed that what they were writing was "true". What exactly truth meant to these people I don't claim to know, but I do know that perceptions of reality can be quite subjective. What is "real" and "true" in one culture and to some people may be seen as just plain nonsense to others. This is the case with much "mythology".

My point is that I think the authors of Matthew and John, while themselves "fabricating" scenes from the scriptures, believed that these writings of their were "true". Again, as for the author of Luke, I don't think he fabricated anything, I think he simply assembled materials from various sources which he took at face value and believed were true.

So, in my mind, we have three different process that produced four different works.

1) Mark - Written as an allegorical fiction
2) Matthew - Written as an extended revelation of Mark
3) Luke - Compiled from various sources and written as a standard history
4) John - Like Matthew, written as an extended revelation based on the Markan narrative

.................................................. ..............................

I feel very strongly that the author of Mark knew Paul's writings. Nevertheless, the very nature of the literary allusions in Mark indicates that they weren't being used as "prophecies", they were being used as simply literary allusions to refer to the meaning of the underlying texts. This is why almost all of the literary allusions refer to the destruction of the Jews.

.................................................. ..............................
I don't think that any of the other Gospel authors understood the Gospel called Mark. I don't think they took it as a story about the destruction of Jerusalem. I think they simply saw correlations between the Markan text and the Hebrew scriptures and they interpreted this as "prophecy fulfillment".

Hi Malachi

You believe that Mark was using Paul's writings. Do you regard Paul as having believed a/ in a historical Jesus as normally understood, or b/ in a non-historical Jesus similar to Mark as you understand Mark, or c/ in a non-historical Jesus very different from Mark ?

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 04-24-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But then anyone who willfully misconstrues such analogies probably won't see they may have no way of showing how they know what they claim to know.

Let's cut out the crap, spin: do you or do you not believe that the nervous system, including the brain, of homo sapiens of our generation is exactly the same as it was two thousand years ago ?

Jiri

Malachi151 · 04-24-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Malachi

You believe that Mark was using Paul's writings. Do you regard Paul as having believed a/ in a historical Jesus as normally understood, or b/ in a non-historical Jesus similar to Mark as you understand Mark, or c/ in a non-historical Jesus very different from Mark ?

Andrew Criddle

I think Paul believed in a "revealed Jesus", revealed through scripture, prayer, and oral stories.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.