Solo

1 Cor 9:19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.

Mark 10:44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all.

The motive of the servant/slave (doulos) is also repated in the parable of the vineyard (Mk 12:1-9). Note that the 'beloved son' the owner of the vineyard sends is also a slave ! (12:6 - eti ena eixen - and yet one more he sends).

I don't see anything in Matthew that really strikes me as Pauline except the Mark's 10:44 verse above repeated in 20:27 (and echoed in Matt's commentary in 12:17) and the Paul's saying of 'the thief in the night' (24:43) which Mark covers in the "watch !" sayings. There is something that looks to me like a veiled attack on Paul and his gang in 10:24 ('slave not above his master'). The other servant/master parables in Matthew I do not see as having a special significance for the Paul connection in Mark...but it's late and I am tired, so no guarantees there.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Without any external corroborative source it cannot be claimed that the author of gMark used the 1 Cor. 9.19

Mark 10.44 1 Cor. 9.19 The author of gMark did not recognise or mention any writer called Paul anywhere and it is CLEAR that the words, actions and geographical locations of Jesus in gMark 10 and indeed the whole of gMark were NOT derived from the Pauline writings.

It is most bizarre and NOT very logical to argue that gMathhew used gMark because almost ALL of gMark is in gMatthew, and still simultaneously claim gMark used the Pauline writings when NOT even a single verse in ALL the Pauline writings can be found in gMark.

The fundamental clue that one writer was AWARE of another writer is word-for-word copying as found in gMatthew and gMark. There is ZERO word-for-word copying in gMark and the ALL the Pauline writings. ZERO.

Chaucer

Totally wrong. The HJ position does NOT reflect the eye-witness approach. The eye-witness approach is the orthodox Christian approach and the HJ position does NOT reflect the eye-witness approach. This is the oldest sleaziest trick in the book for a myther to deliberately confound the orthodox approach and the HJ approach.

I'm damn sorry now that I voted in this poll. It's a sneaky underhanded poll reflecting the approach of the most dishonest kind of myther, not the neutral scholar who Spin purports to be.

I chose the developing oral traditions option, but if that is to be interpreted in this poll as implicitly adopting the assumption that "there is little hope for the person passing on the tradition knowing any reality in the tradition", then I chose wrong, and it was a sneaky way of making SECULAR HJ-ers like me go on record as viewing all the texts from the most extravagant embellishments in GJohn to the parallel wisdom sayings in GMatt/GLuke as equally nebulous. I DON'T view all these texts as equally nebulous, and unless I'm shown a way of withdrawing my vote right away, I'm complaining to the moderators for these sharp practices.

The very idea of not having an option for the approach that views different texts in the NT as of varying historical integrity! The very idea of only having options that slosh all NT texts under the same umbrella of either purely eye-witness or purely embellishment! THIS IS A POLL. If you don't take certain approaches seriously, YOU STILL HAVE THEM COVERED IF YOU ARE DOING AN HONEST POLL.

Having None of the Above as the only option for those of us who share the MAJORITY view in the outside academic world of graded levels of historical integrity in the NT texts is like asking Obama supporters in a 2012 poll to mark None of the Above with an Obama option altogether missing from the list. It's unconscionable.

The HJ position is summed up in this thread by Judge and should be included in black and white if this poll is to have any integrity at all --

"those who think Jesus to have been some person, but who dont see much in the way of eye witness input."

Chaucer

aa5874

But what you claim is just not true. Even in the NT Jesus claimed that the eye-witness approach was NOT necessary. Christians use FAITH rather than eye-witnesses.

Joh 20:29 - Even the Pauline writers did NOT use the eye-witness approach.

You simply have an extremely weak argument for HJ if there are NO eye-witnesses of the Messiah called Jesus and even from so-called contemporaries like the Pauline writers.

Toto

The poll is not scientific, and your vote is anonymous.

If you want to construct a poll that is more to your liking, you have that option.

Please tone down the outrage.

Clivedurdle

We haven't yet discussed irony.

Might the original have been an ironic play as a reaction to something?

We are looking at the early years after the change from Republic to Empire.

A political critique of emperors as gods set in a foreign land?

Chaucer

You don't even begin to know what I mean by "approach". I mean the scholarly take that the MAJORITY of SECULAR academia TODAY has on the background to the VARIOUS NT texts. Their usual take TODAY is what Judge described in his post --

"those who think Jesus to have been some person, but who dont see much in the way of eye witness input."

That's the SECULAR HJ approach. Once and for all, that HJ approach is d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t from the Christian approach.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Oh? And just how am I supposed to be able to change my vote from Option B to Option D (None of the Above)? Right now, this poll gives a fraudulent result with one vote more for the ill-worded Option B than is warranted and one vote less for Option D than is required in order to reflect the true range of opinions on this board.

Chaucer

Toto

<sigh>

You can't. You can't take back your vote in the last election. You can only explain here what your position is.

There have been many, many polls here on the historical Jesus or related topics. They are just a way of testing the water.

Toto

The standard model says that there is not much in the way of eyewitness input, but still there is a historical kernal. There were originally eyewitnesses, who told stories, which became oral traditions, that became legends, that resulted in the gospels. Historical Jesus professionals think that they can walk this process back to get a glimpse of the original historical core. So I don't see why Option B is not a good choice for you.

You could set up a poll with a multitude of gradations - Jesus was purely fictional from the 4th century, Jesus was purely fiction from the 2nd century, the Jesus story evolved from revelations to disciples supposedly from someone who died 100 BC, Jesus was a cynic sage, Jesus was a purely Jewish prophet, Jesus was a deranged apocalyptic madman, Jesus was a Eunuch, Jesus was an angel, etc, etc, for every variation of mythicism and historicism. But then the poll would take up the entire page, and you might get one vote for each and no indication of any trend.