Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

There is the problem, using genres of modern texts to classify another culture and time's writings.

Modern genres have patterns. Presumably, ancient genres also had patterns. Unless you are saying that maybe ancient genres did not have patterns, then I think you misunderstood, but it's cool.

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

In other words, there is no evidence that any oral tradition stemmed from the time of Jesus.

Who would have guessed?

Well, yeah, I guess there is no evidence that you would accept as evidence.

PhilosopherJay · 06-12-2011, 03:32 PM

Hi Steven, ApostateAbe,

I think Craig Evans in his article Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription offers a good antidote to the idea that Mark was listening to oral stories rather than combining literary texts.

The Priene Inscription

Quote:

It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him ” which Asia resolved in Smyrna.

He notes that the first line of Mark: "The Beginning of the gospel (good news/evangelion) of Jesus Christ" reflects the line in the Priene inscription "The birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the the good news (evangelion) for the world that came by reason of him.

Mark's second line is 1.2As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way; 1.3the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight--"

We can see more clearly the connection between these two lines, if we assume that originally the first line of Mark was even closer in form to the Priene inscription:

Quote:

The baptism of John the Baptist was the beginning of the good news for the world that came by reason of him
As it is written in Isaiah, the prophet,

"Behold I send my messenger before they face, who shall prepare the way;

"the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

1.4John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 1.5And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

[Note: I think we can assume that the phrase "As it is written in Isaiah" was added by a later writer. Obviously the writer of proto-Mark would have known that he was copying from Malachi and then Isaiah. The editor probably recognized the second line and thought, "Hey, I know where that comes from, I'll put in the source for those who don't know their Hebrew scriptures."]

If this reconstruction is correct, we can see that proto-Mark copied the priene inscription, just making it about John the Baptist instead of God Augustus. This would have been funny to those who got the reference.
He next copied Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me"
He then copied a third quote from Isaiah 40:3: A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God.

This is his way of introducing John the Baptist, who is being compared to Augustus Caesar by the writer because both delivered good news to the world. Later, in incorporating this Gospel (Good News) of John the Baptist material into the later gospel of Mark/Jesus, the first line was changed and we now have this awkward jump from Jesus to John instead of the clear and smooth original opening just about John. Obviously the baptism described would have been the baptism of John where God declared him his son.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

In other words, there is no evidence that any oral tradition stemmed from the time of Jesus.

Who would have guessed?

DCHindley · 06-12-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Do you disagree with this categorization? If so, then please explain why.

May I ask why the categorization is important? What does determining the genre ad to the text?

Jon

Different genres tend to emphasize certain literary motifs over others. I guess that each genre uses common words with differing emphasis. Perhaps you could try Googling "significance of genre" (include the quotation marks) plus "antiquity" or "interpretation" and see if the lit crit community explains it on a web page or online article/Google Book.

DCH

Hmmm, Well I did the search. Finally found this short book (100 pgs).

A Students Guide to Classics

It discusses genres of literature common in classical antiquity.

The importance is not how we are today defining and interpreting genre, but how ancient writers classified types of literature into genres, and the way authors used readers' expectations of works written in certain genres to enhance their work.

The problem with using genre to interpret the Gospels is that the Gospels did not fit neatly into an existing genre, but that doesn't prevent them from being of mixed genre.

Genre can be understood as a framework which can be manipulated by use of "emplotment". Emplotment is the use of conventions of plot to describe things, people or events. That means within one genre (e.g. poetry, epic, drama, letters, treatises, novel, biography, etc) one can emplot the story as romance, tragedy, comedy or satire.

DCH

jgoodguy · 06-12-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

There is no 'real' evidence. If you are looking for primary, tangible, or credible secondary evidence for 1st century Christianity; you are in the wrong place.

The possibilities are: The author of Mark was inspired, created the whole gospel himself or used other sources including oral traditions. Due to the high cost of writing materials and the lack of a literate population, oral tradition has a high probability for other sources. Given that oral traditions were a high probability, why would the author of Mark make it all up. So if Ehrman wants to argue that the author of Mark used oral traditions it follows that he is probably correct.

But everything in Mark has one or more literary sources. What need is there for oral traditions, unless you are committed to the idea that there is some history in the gospels?

What exactly comprises "some history?". 1%, 5% or what.

How can one be committed to some affirmation that Mark is 5% historical? Is that 100% committed to 5% historical?

I am very happy that you got primary, tangible or credible secondary evidence that "everything in Mark has one or more literary sources". Kindly share that with us.

jgoodguy · 06-12-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On page 67, Ehrman says 'Mark' wrote down some of the stories about Jesus that he had heard.

Rather surprisingly, Ehrman gives no evidence that 'Mark' had heard these stories in any sort of oral tradition.

I wonder why historians feel no great need for evidence for their 'facts'

Also on page 67:

"An introductory textbook such as this cannot provide an exhaustive analysis of Mark (or the other Gospels). My purpose here is simply to provide some guidance for your own interpretation of the book, by supplying you with important keys for unlocking its meaning."

If you want evidence and arguments, I suggest that you go to the scholarly articles that deal specifically with that debate.

If you were to ask me for a good argument that Mark had heard of these stories in any sort of oral tradition, I would say that such is the pattern seen most explicitly in Luke and Paul, and the gospel of Mark in particular is organized like a hodge-podge series of barely-related stories and sermons, as if they were taken from a diverse set of legends about Jesus.

In other words, there is no evidence that any oral tradition stemmed from the time of Jesus.

Who would have guessed?

Unless you wish to postulate a near 100% literacy and lots of cheap and readily available writing materials and methods, then there had to be oral traditions or no knowledge would be available to the common man. Once you concede that oral traditions for many things existed, then it follows that one or more oral traditions for Christianity also existed, unless you wish to argue that everything got written down and transmitted.

It is a bit vague what exactly they were, but that is another line of argument.

aa5874 · 06-12-2011, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Unless you wish to postulate a near 100% literacy and lots of cheap and readily available writing materials and methods, then there had to be oral traditions or no knowledge would be available to the common man. Once you concede that oral traditions for many things existed, then it follows that one or more oral traditions for Christianity also existed, unless you wish to argue that everything got written down and transmitted.

It is a bit vague what exactly they were, but that is another line of argument.

But, you are MERELY SPECULATING that there actually were oral traditions of Christianity without knowing if there were any.

One cannot merely assume that because there was oral traditions that there MUST be oral traditions of anything that is ASSUMED.

Again, all we have are the Baptism stories and they are all FICTION stories as presented in the Gospels.

If Jesus was a man then the baptism of Jesus had NO theological significance at all.

In the Baptism stories, John the Baptist did NOT even know who Jesus was. He never saw the man.

And, after he baptized Jesus, if we remove the magical LEVITATION, the Holy Ghost like a Dove, and the TALKING cloud, John the Baptist is quickly removed from the story.

When John the Baptist died, Jesus did NOT even attend the burial. Jesus said virtually NOTHING about John the Baptist.

It is CLEAR that the story of the Baptism of Jesus by John was ONLY mentioned for the MAGICAL parts and is NOT of any historical value.

JonA · 06-12-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The categorization relates to the fundamental issue of making sense of the author's intentions. If you think that the author of the gospel of Mark is giving his perspective of the perceived life and teachings of Jesus, then you will have a much different way of explaining the texts than if you think Mark was explicitly writing fictional prose, as some in the forum have suggested.

Is there a way, then, for determining the genre?

Are we stuck relying on our 'thinks' and 'suggestions'?

Jon

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

So; we must at least read the texts for what they say in order to determine the genre?

Jon

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think that we can determine genre the same way we can figure out the genres of modern texts, by knowing the patterns that exist in such genres and seeing which set of patterns fits the gospels the best.

So; we must at least read the texts for what they say in order to determine the genre?

Jon

That would be the central evidence, yes, but it would also help to read the texts directly related to the text in question and the texts unambiguously belonging to the proposed genres.

aa5874 · 06-12-2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

So; we must at least read the texts for what they say in order to determine the genre?

Jon

That would be the central evidence, yes, but it would also help to read the texts directly related to the text in question and the texts unambiguously belonging to the proposed genres.

It is most remarkable that people here seem not to understand that the NT CANON cannot be an HERETICAL document.

No book of the NT CANON can claim Jesus was an ordinary man or else it would NOT be CANONIZED.

This is SO BASIC that it is MIND-BOGGLING that even so-called Scholars are putting forward the MOST absurd idea that gMark is a BIOGRAPHY of Man.

Many books have been written by Church writers which CLEARLY described Jesus Christ.

Church writers have IDENTIFIED that the claim that Jesus was a MAN is HERESY and cannot be ALSO promoted by the very Church that produced the NT CANON.

The Gospel according to Mark is NOT the biography of a MAN.

This is SO BASIC. gMark is CANONIZED.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.