Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 07-17-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

They are not.

First when you put it into the singular you disguise what seems to have happened. Why does the gospel of Mark say that Jesus had his home in Capernaum in one instance and in his unnamed homeland in another? These are two separate traditions yoked together in Mark.

There is no methodology that can turn these statements into separate traditions. How do you know that "his own country" in Mk 6 is not Capernaum?

These are two isolated stories: one has Jesus in a synagogue in Capernaum teaching and healing; while the other has Jesus astounding people as if this was the first time they'd seen his marvels. Besides, you'd expect the prophet in his own country stuff to have appeared in his first effort if they were the same place. Obviously, they aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The idea that he returned to his home region was simply created by the writer of Mark to justify the saying in 6:4 as a number of exegetes have argued, including Bultmann. There is no reason to suppose the whole thing is anything other than a literary construct.

Of course by the time of Tertullian and Eusebius a body of oral stories had no doubt grown up.

One feeding is from aMark, the other from a redactor. They do not represent separate traditions but separate creations. There is no reason to suppose that doubling and confusion of terms represents an oral tradition.

This does not explain the existence of the two stories. It is merely an assertion of how it must be for you. It is simpler to think that time and telling made the variation (as they so frequently do) rather than inexplicable purpose duplicated the same story with rewrites.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

How a non-Jew became so influential at the earliest days of a Jewish sect is incredible. The whole story of Christian origins is so muddled it is impossible to say anything definitively but the inherent Jewish and Samaritan mistrust and even loathing of outsiders makes the contention that Mark was Gentile in the purest sense unlikely.

I don't know what this is doing here, but I have no problem with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

aMark is clearly not a Jew for his understanding of Jewish law and practice is at best, garbled, as Matthew's corrections of him make clear.

And I never made any claims to the contrary. In fact I've frequently indicated that Mark was probably written in Rome for a Roman Greek speaking audience, though the writer was neither Roman nor Greek. Whatever the origin of the (major) writer of Mark was he was unacquainted directly with Palestine and made cultural connections with the Roman world.

aa5874 · 07-17-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

.....The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke point to a common tradition, but it was not a detailed written account. The two narratives are derived from the same few basic notions that have developed separately by accretion.....

The birth narratives in gMatthew and gLuke are fundamentally different and do not appear to be from a common tradtion.

The author of gLuke fundamentally DISCREDITS the birth narrative in gMatthew.

1. In gLuke, King Herod does NOT need to kill the children.

2. In gLuke, Baby Jesus did NOT need to flee to Egypt.

3. In gLuke, shepherds in Jerusalem KNEW and when Jesus was born.

4. In gLuke, the shepherds told people in Jerusalem about the birth and birth place of Jesus.

The birth narrative in gLuke appears to be a late invention to remove obvious problems with the earlier birth narrative.

mountainman · 07-18-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The entire oral tradition rests on a single witness who even the uber-credulous Eusebius suggests is a crackpot.

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I think Eusebius's description runs as follows:

"Papias was a man of very small mind, if we may judge by his own words"

Quote:

I suggest that anybody who believes in an oral tradition or oral history behind the writings about Jesus be labeled a Papiass and dismissed as a believer of absurdities and nonsense, no matter how many degrees s/he may have or articles peer reviewed by other Papiasses.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Entirely do I agree that this may at the end of the day prove to be an appropriate terminology for those who postulate simultaneously an "Historical Jesus" and an "oral tradition" prior to the authorship of the books of the canonical New Testament in Greek. There is no evidence for either postulate, let alone one supporting the other or vice verse.

We seem to be stuck with the only viable postulate is that the appearance of the Gospels and Letters in the Greek New Testament canonical literature is substantially very late, and very sudden. At this stage we are also looking for an editor, to have assembled the written canonical books, and to have implemented a system of nomina sacra which would characterise all future publications, including Codex Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus.

I wonder who this "canonical books gatherer and editor" was, and when he did his stuff, and who knew him, and may have written about him, and his ingenious system of Greek "sacred name" encryption that he employed, that was accepted as the exemplar from that age evermore.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 07-24-2011, 07:55 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Precisely.

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Precisely.

Where is the letter of Paul saying "And you remember when I repeated the 23 parables, 18 blessings, 12 woes and 35 wisdom sayings of Jesus to all of you over and over again and I made you repeat them every day for six weeks until you did not make any mistakes, and then I came back two years later and you all repeated them word for word?"

There is no evidence like this.

The oral tradition was invented to explain the gap between the time of the writing of the gospels and the narrative date of death of Jesus at least 40 years earlier and the numerous contradictions in the gospels.

What is the proof of the oral tradition? There was an historical Jesus. What is the proof of the historical Jesus? There was an Oral tradition. This Petitio Principii is the secular version of "How do I know the Bible is true? Because God wrote it." "How do I know God wrote it? Because the Bible tells me."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

if there was an oral tradition, why are the gospels all based on each other and identifiable texts (Q, OT, Josephus, etc).

if there was an oral tradition, why does justin in trypho cite the memoirs of the apostles instead of reaching for the oral tradition?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.