Ted Hoffman

Here is Doherty's long Review of Robert Price's book THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING SON OF MAN

A quote from Price is particularly significant:

Whereas Price denies he is an MJ, his work points to MJ through and through.

cloudyphiz

very nice review and summary of price's work.
thanks for posting.

-gary

Vinnie

I just wrote a piece on Gethsemane. Most of the block here is accurate but some appears to be slightly off or simply doesn't give enough information.

My article on Gethsemane:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/gethsemane.html

Correct. THis does not mean there was or was not a historical core. Hebrews and the Gospel of John need to be discussed along with Mark in detail.

Mark's final composition is certainly a literary construction going with the theological grain of Mark. This, however, does not prevent the possibility of pre-Markan sources.

Brown writes that the three-fold divisioin is difficult to see on a prima facie level. Heil ("Mark") argues for a very elaborate structure of nine scenes in Mark 14. Fiebig ("Jesu" 122-125) argues that the Marcan account has Hebrew or Aramaic roots and stems from Jesus. Pesch (Markus) points to the number of hapax legomena as an indicator that it came to Mark whole from a source. Some (Feldkamper, Grundmann, Holleran, Kuhn, Lagrange, Loisy and Shatter) think Luke had an independent source from Mark while others (Creed, Feldmeier, Finegan, Fitzmeyer, Klostermann, Neyrey, Schmid, Schneider and Soards) think it is an abridgement of Mark.

And even though it looks like little can be removed from Mark as it now stands it does not prevent disparate traditions and an historical core. The account as it stands is certainly NOT historical.

Those schoalrs I listed above thought Luke had a different source. But as I SHOWED in my article Luke disagreed with the portrait of Jesus and he softened Mark's account. His theology had a different image of Jesus and he esteemed the disciples more. That is the primary reason Luke streamlined the account in my estimation.

Here it seems that Doherty errs:

Luke streamlined the more "spectacular version" of Mark (the mere Angel does not make Luke more spectacular!). Luke is shorter, simpler and streamlined. The trend is not always from shorter to Longer in NT studies. Often "more spectacular" stuff is streamlined by those using it. This can be seen through synoptic relations.

V 43 and 44 (of which this appears) are in serious textual jeapordy. So whether or not Luke ACTUALLY added an angel is unknown. See my article though it refers to Brown's discussion.

This is correct.

The SYNOPTICS?

What evidence is there that John even dates to later than Matthew and Luke? For all Doherty and Price know it may have been written earlier. Mark came before John. We know that much. If Mark got his snippets in 12, 14 and 18 that parallel the Gethsemane prayer this needs to be argued, not assumed John got these from there. It could simply have been a broad and early tradition. Hebrews may very well know it.

Yes, virtually all the sayings material in John is literary activity, especially the prayer in ch 17 and this passage here. The final form of Mark's Gethsemane account is certainly a literary construct modeled after the Old Testament. As I quoted Brown:

"More obviously, however, several of the evangelists are echoing the Ascent of Olives references in II Sam 15:30. Absalom had led Jerusalem to revolt against David with the help of Ahithophel, David's trusted counselor who deserted him; and so David went out (15:16: exerchesthai), crossed "the winter-flowing" Kidron (LXX 15:23), went up the Ascent of Olives, wept there, and prayed to God. As Glasson ("Davidic"), Trudinger ("Davidic") and others have pointed out, this David narrative in II Sam 15 constitutes the background of the Synoptic scene where Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives, soul sorrowful, praying to God, betrayed by a trusted member of the Twelve (a parallelism that Matt 27:5 heightens by having Judas hang himself, even as did Ahithophel in II Sam 178:23--the only two biblical figures to do so). John, who does not mention the Mount of Olives, echoes II Sam 15 as well, since "across the Kidron valley" is literally "across the winter-flowing Kidron," i.e., a wadi or arroyo that has flowing water only in the winter when it rains." (Brown, ibid.)

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

It would have been nice if Doherty had spent more time reflecting on Price, and less on how great his own ideas were, and how great it was that Price agreed with them, and anyway, you can find it all on my book (p100-1)......

Vorkosigan