JonA

There's nothing to account for. Your objection is just nonsense.

Enough said.

jdl

Good post, Jon. I don't necessarily agree with any of it, but credit where credit's due: you've finally made a substantive argument.

Joseph.

aa5874

The NT Canon does NOT support the argument for an historical Jesus. It is for that very reason why Scholars are on a QUEST for an historical Jesus.

The NT Canon, including the Pauline writings support the EXISTENCE of a DIVINE Jesus, God's Own Son, the Word that was God the Creator born of a Holy Ghost that was cucrucified on earth.

A Divine Jesus fathered by a Holy Ghost is a NON-historical Jesus which is no different to the Myth Gods of the Greeks as ADMITTED by Justin Martyr.

Jesus of the NT, born of the seed of God, is a Myth that was claimed to have lived on earth, crucified, resurrected and ascended in the time of Pilate [or even Cladius].

LegionOnomaMoi

Then either you misunderstood what I said, or what it says, or both.



Right. And what is "this aspect"? Here's what what you quoted from my post (emphasis added):
And your comment (emphasis added):
Now, what I said was that it looks like Mark took various sources and awkwardly strung them together into a narrative account. HIS narrative account. I never said he simply put together sources without a purpose or plan. My comment was on the stylistic, grammatical, literary (basically any aspect of importance when it comes constructing narrative) used by Mark. He had a plan, certainly. My point, however, was his ineptitude (from a stylistic, literary, and grammatical standpoint), and why this is indicative of a a use of sources rather than a literary composition. If I'm writing a fictional work of allegory, or a novel, or whatever, even if I'm a bad writer and an uneducated individual (and in Mark's day, just the ability to write means an educational background) I won't end up with a work like Mark: One with an attempt to make various stories, sayings, etc., into a coherent, logically structured narrative which I plan but fail not because I'm a bad writer, but because my work has very neatly constructed components which are joined together very badly (from a literary standpoint). If Mark was just an awful writer, than he's be an awful writer all over. But the issue isn't just bad grammar/style/use of literary devices. It's mainly how different components are connected. A given pericope, logion, whatever, might be well constructed. But (with the exception of the passion narrative) where Mark constantly fails from a literary perspective is in his use of literary transitions. Why? Because he isn't simply composing, he's reconstructing.

I have. Along with many others like it. Can you read greek? I assumed you could.


I see. What we need is more "imagination" here. If we ignore the actual original language, apply "imagination", then we get...well, pretty much whatever we want.


No, it wouldn't. Look at the Greek of the LXX. Or the English of the KJV (which isn't a great translation, but beautiful language, carefully constructed, and one of the most important documents ever written in terms of shaping the English language). There is no reason Mark has to look like it does, other than that Mark simply was not at all adept at taking his material and molding it to suit his purposes. It's clear he had these purposes, and clear he tried to mold a well connected story. He simply did a bad job.


Can you read Greek? Because the use of particles in Greek is extremely important when it comes to structure and logic.


And yet, somehow, nobody was commenting on this "incompetence" until the entirety of the NT story and and christian origins was questioned. Hmm...


According to tradition, Mark didn't have some "oral source" but had Peter. And Matthew and John were actually, there, while Luke wasn't. So, if it is all just "apologetics" then why don't we here the same comments about Luke? "Because he used Mark." Why argue he used Mark? Why do we posit that Q existed? In fact, why do scholars accept Markan priority (since Holtzmann), almost without exception, at all? If the only reason we have sooooo many comments on the poor construction of Mark is to defend various sources (plural) behind it for apologetic reasons, then apologetic scholars (after all, it was such scholars who demonstrated the poor construction of Mark in the first place) first demonstrated that the church tradition (that Mark was written by a certain John Mark and used Peter as a source) was implausible, and then (for "apologetic reasons") pointed out how poorly it was constructed so that they could argue Mark used various sources rather than the traditional eyewitness source (Peter).

There's a far easier way and better way to be wrong for apologetic reasons: Matthew was Jesus' disciple, and the reason Mark differs is because he wasn't there, he's just recording stuff he learned from Peter. As for Luke, same thing. The fact that the similarity in numerous Greek lines in the synoptics seems to indicate that 1) Matthew and Luke had common sources and 2) Mark was one and Q was another is easily explained by any number of equally wrong "apologetic" argument: Matthew actually was there, while Mark and Luke weren't, but all three relied on eyewitness accounts. Matthew was first, and then Mark used what he had from Peter, and Luke used what he had, and the fact that they are so often so similar is simply because they are all right.

But that's not the argument. Instead of defending Mark as a adept, capable recorder of a tradition, we have an argument which states he was anything but. An argument which undermines the view that Mark is an eyewitness.

So either apologists are so stupid they don't realize their "defense" merely makes their position weaker, or you are simply wrong to attribute their analyses to their apologetic biases.

LegionOnomaMoi

1) The style is nothing like they LXX, except where we have actual quotes
2) A basic understanding of how texts are affected when they rely on material from a typologically different language.

EarlDoherty

You’ve obviously been in touch with GakuseiDon, or perhaps he offered you some of his old timeworn stuff. This is all very familiar.

You are the one who has gotten hung up on the word “erchomenos.” My argument and quotes involved much more than the single word “come.” In fact, most of the examples I gave did not even involve that word. For example, 1 Peter 1:7 says “…when Jesus Christ is revealed” (the verb phaneroō). Was Christ not ‘revealed’ at an earlier time, namely his incarnation on earth? A statement like that, and the epistles have many of them, makes my point that there is no sense that this figure had been on earth in the past.

I also spoke of context. The Gospels provide a context of Jesus being on earth. That renders the understanding of the word “erchomenos” unmistakeable. No such context is supplied in the epistles.

And you’ve completely missed the point in Hebrews 10:37, even with the word “come”. The author is quoting a prophecy (Habakkuk 2:3): “the Coming One will come.” But hadn’t he already come? The prophecy has already been fulfilled. (That's the way Christians later understood it.) The prophecy is not about a return, so it would be nonsense to understand 10:37 as “(As scripture says [since he is quoting it]): the Coming One will return and will not delay.” Scripture could not be taken to say any such thing.

I give this analogy in JNGNM:

In 1900, witnessing the rise of German militarism under the Kaiser, the Englishman Mr. Smith makes a prediction that “we will one day be at war with Germany.”

In 1930, witnessing the rise of Hitler and Nazism, Mr. Jones says, “soon Mr. Smith’s prediction is going to come true and we will be at war with Germany.”

Mr. Brown objects, “But Mr. Smith’s prediction has already come true. We were at war with Germany only a few years ago.”

“Are you sure?” asks Mr. Jones. “I guess I must have missed it.”

You need to put a little more thought into these things yourself. Don’t rely on others (especially Don) to feed you material.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Your statement is NOT logical and is out of context.

Look at the very first verse of 1 Peter.

1 Peter 1:1 KJV The author of 1 Peter is claiming that people of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia did NOT see Jesus, God's own son, while he was supposedly on earth.

In the NT, Jesus did NOT go to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Jesus, the logos and God the Creator appeared in Judea and Jerusalem.

Context is extremely significant.

The statement in 1 Peter 1.7 merely signifies that Jesus did NOT appear in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia to the strangers to whom the letter was addressed.

dog-on

Really? What do you mean by "except where we have actual quotes"? Just to be clear.

Perhaps, so we avoid a semantic debate here, you could take a look at Exodus in the LXX, for example.

How do you distinguish such from original material composed in an author's secondary language?

dog-on

Your logic is a bit faulty.

One case refers to someone who will come in the future with no prior claim that this person had already been there.

The second case refers to someone that is already there, or descibed as already having been there (as in the Acts passage you cited), themself saying that they would come in the future, in other words, come back.

In the first case, as you have no prior claim that the one referred to was already there, you cannot simply assume it means come back.

Spanky

Quite a convincing argument.