Ben C Smith

Yes, I did. But what you have quoted from me as lead-in to this comment was not part of that protest.

I take it, too, that you now remember that the unanimity of textual testimony never came up in our exchange on 1 Corinthians 15.3-8.

But of course patristic testimony has evidentiary value. That you would reject it is not as amazing to me as it might once have been.

No, not quite universally. But a very healthy majority (with which I happen to agree).

Ah, but there is a potential patristic witness to the gospel ending at chapter 20.

But, since patristic testimony has no evidentiary value to you, naturally you would not be interested in that.

Oh? Then what else happened?

Yes, and I still am not.

Ben.

Solo

Will you kindly read the whole sentence before you start to argue with a different proposition ?

I am not disputing that if there is a textual issue of variance, that the patristic testimony has value as evidence, sometimes crucial, as to when it occured. But if there isn't, and a justifiable suspicion is raised as to whether the presumed text alteration took place in copying prior to being mulled over by the church fathers (and/or early heretics), then the patristic testimony is USELESS, meaning USELESS, in testing the suspicion. I know that this taxes some biblical exegets beyond their intellectual capacity, and whets the appetite of Torquemadas for "acts of faith". That, however, is not my fault. :huh:

Well, and that is one way to deal with views which do not fit one's world of miracles and wonders. But here she is, die Hure Vernunft - ignore her at your own peril.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

My world is remarkably free of miracles and wonders. Possibly to my own peril.

In short, I once again have not the slightest idea what you are talking about, which is one reason (though not the primary reason; this happens to be my busiest time of year on my regular job) for not debating you. Most of your points go right over my head.

Case in point: I do not think you expressed yourself very well if by patristic testimony having no value if the passage is in dispute on internal grounds you meant that the patristic testimony has value as evidence, sometimes crucial, as to when [the alteration] occurred.

I was responding to the absoluteness of the former, of course. I would agree with the latter.

Ben.

Solo

yes, you do, Ben, you do, this what the psychologists call pleading "wooden leg".

admittedly, some of my ideas might look strange to you (because they are original), and I am not going to press on those. Our interests in the texts have a different focus. Yours are in textual and linguistic analysis. Mine tend to psychology, philosophy and information theory, which I consider the neglected maidens in the study of the texts. So, then my emphasis on certain points may throw you and I am trying to be as tolerant of that as possible. I am not asking you (or anyone on this board) to underwrite my "bipolar" theory. But there are certainly considerations which are available to you, which you can evaluate.

Just one example: in the 1 Cr 15 passage I said: Paul built a very strong and invariant set of beliefs around his mission, his relationship with the church and other apostolic figures. His relation to other leaders of the movement can be summarized as “humble to Christ, haughty to men”. It comes the strongest in Galatians, where the agonistic apostle declares his gospel to be a monopoly from God and threatens everyone who contradicts him with hell (Gal 5:10). You do not have to have a Phd in psychology to say, "Jiri, this is crap: Paul says this and that, there and there he is very penitent before the church which he accepts as authority, which supports the 1 Cr 15 passage as Pauline". But you do not say that, you say something like "Jiri, already Marcion knew the passage - that's very early - so there is a major problem in viewing the passage as interpolated". To which of course I say "crap!".

Jiri

Ben C Smith

You mentioned a world of miracles and wonders.

That image loses me, and my only recourse is to let you know that I do not know what you are talking about. I cannot, of course, make you believe me when I tell you that I do not know what you are talking about.

And history.

Which is one reason among many why your approach is alien to me.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ted, I agree with you that "Mark's" use of "Jesus Christ" is not by itself much evidence of Fiction. In addition to the reasons you gave obviously they didn't have last names back than so it was more common to add something to a name to identify a person, especially a famous one. I mean, how many 1st century Jews could there have been claiming to be the Messiah. A 100? Maybe 500 tops?

On the other hand, not giving an origin to the hero of an extended writing of the time appears to not be just unusual but may be unique. Still waiting for someone, anyone, Beuhler, to find one. In addition, we have the Literary balance of "Mark" with no details regarding Jesus' supposed Origin and Destination.

Let's consider All implications, right?

"works that are religiously motivated don't always adhere to strict historical standards."

I also trust that you are in the habit of reading what you wrote.



Joseph

ANOINT, v.t.
To grease a king or other great functionary already sufficiently slippery.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Moving unto the next Name in "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

4 "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.

7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:

11 And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased."


JW:
In general, Named characters in "Mark" are shown unfavorably and in Contrast, Unnamed characters are shown favorably. I'll repeat my challenge regarding "Mark's" failure to give Jesus any origin. Is anyone aware of any other ancient writing where in general, Named characters are shown unfavorably and in Contrast, Unnamed characters are shown favorably? Usually it would be the other way around.

Specifically here with John the Baptizer, a Named character, it's generally assumed that he is a favorable character in "Mark". But is he really? Note that "Mark" never gives any Explicit information that John recognized Jesus in any way. For someone who was reading "Mark" and let's say was also familiar with Paul's writings but didn't know any other Gospel, would they assume that "Mark's" John the Baptizer recognized Jesus in any way? Seeing as "Mark" has a major theme of secret identity and failure to recognize I don't think "Mark's" John the Baptizer recognized Jesus. Obviously "Matthew"/"Luke's" John the Baptizers did:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_3

13 "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?"

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_7

17 "And this report went forth concerning him in the whole of Judaea, and all the region round about.

18 And the disciples of John told him of all these things.

19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to the Lord, saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?"

Note that "Matthew" also has this story but "Mark" does not.

We have the extreme Irony than that "Mark's" John the Baptist is sent by God to be Jesus' messenger to fulfill Prophecy, Baptizes Jesus, but never recognizes Jesus!

In the bigger picture this simple illiterate Galilean fisherman has set up an ironic Contrast between a Prophesied, Named, Human, Messenger at the Start that everyone listens to who doesn't recognize Jesus even though he was right in front of his !@#$%^&* face and a Prophesied, Unnamed, Divine, Messenger at the End that no one listens to who did recognize Jesus even though he was nowhere in sight.



Joseph

BAPTISM, n.
A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways -- by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
As I said, "Mark's" story consists "primarily" of Impossible events. It is therefore primarily an Impossible (Fiction) story. So there is nothing wrong with my statement.

A Christian child writes a story about Santa Claus and believes it's true. Is this story Fiction? Not only is my statement not fallacious, yours is. Congratulations.

JW:
See above.

JW:
"Mark's" Jesus would be sore Amazed that in a context of posturing that I am guilty of logical fallacies you use logical fallacies. The above is one example. Statistically it's usually the other way around. A tendency for the real witness to claim relatively less of the Impossible than those not direct witnesses (compare Paul's own writings to Acts). Also, it's a false dichotomy. A real witness can exaggerate or at least give the benefit of the doubt or at least accept uncritically. Not to mention, specifically the Gospels look like a genre of ancient biography of a supposedly great person. Impossible claims achieve a Literary objective of describing/emphasizing the quality of a person. "Mark's" Jesus has an Agenda of Serving others/not serving himself. When "Mark" shows Jesus doing this it might have been more important to him to communicate what he thought Jesus' character was than simply that Jesus did that specific Impossible action.

JW:
Your conclusions have gotten increasingly worse Ben, not just here. I've noticed this is more of your norm now, posturing based on a general argument that someone else's conclusion is clearly wrong rather than argue the details first.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CF...&number=617972

"Word/Inflected Form Lemma Part of Speech Lexical Entry
παρηκολουθηκότι (1) παρακολουθέω (4) Verb to follow beside, follow closely
Parsing Perfect Active Participle Dative Singular Masculine"

I accept this as very good evidence that "Luke" was male. See how easy that was? On the other hand:

1) As Marshall points out in his critical commentary the Greek of the Prologue is noticeably better than the Greek of the rest of "Luke". This suggests a different author. Since Jeffrey likely will read this I guess I also have to say that Marshall just assumes the same male author.

2) It's quite possible at this time that a female author or Editor would hide female authorship.

3) The Prologue impeaches the credibility of the Prologue author by claiming that what follows is an original investigation rather than significantly copying and editing of "Mark" without attribution.

On Page 65 of Who Wrote The Gospels Helms gives his list of reasons to suspect why the author was female:

1) Annunciation to Mary.

2) Uses the word "women" 11 times ("Mark" = 2).

3) Uses the word "womb" 8 times ("Mark" = 0).

4) Interest in Mary's inner life.

5) Has Mary rejoice in pregnancy.

6) Mentions "fetal quickening".

7) Implies that Jesus' female followers outnumber males.

8) Implies that Jesus' ministry financed by females.

9) First to call Jesus "Lord" is a woman.

10) First person resurrected after Jesus is a woman.

11) First European Christian is a woman.

12) Shows female disciples as the first to believe resurrection and male disciples as the first not to believe.

13) Only Christian Bible author to claim that men and women will prophesy.

14) Only gospel to mention prophetess.

15) Only Christian Bible author to praise women who spoke up to men.

16) Has the largest cast of female characters.



Joseph

WOMAN, n.

An animal usually living in the vicinity of Man, and having a
rudimentary susceptibility to domestication. It is credited by
many of the elder zoologists with a certain vestigial docility
acquired in a former state of seclusion, but naturalists of the
postsusananthony period, having no knowledge of the seclusion,
deny the virtue and declare that such as creation's dawn beheld,
it roareth now. The species is the most widely distributed of all
beasts of prey, infesting all habitable parts of the globe, from
Greeland's spicy mountains to India's moral strand. The popular
name (wolfman) is incorrect, for the creature is of the cat kind.
The woman is lithe and graceful in its movement, especially the
American variety (felis pugnans), is omnivorous and can be
taught not to talk.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack

JW:
Moving unto the next Name in "Mark":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1

14 "Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,

15 and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.

16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him."


JW:
Simon is introduced as the first follower of Jesus. For a character who is subsequently described as the head disciple it is surprising, just as it was for Jesus, that there is no identification as son of so and so. This makes it hard to believe that Simon was behind this Gospel. Simon's relationship is only described as a Brother.

Note again that Simon is the "first". Also note that the underlying Hebrew name "Shimon", means "to hear".

The sense of the presentation of Simon here is that Jesus was very persuasive and Simon was easily persuaded. Thus:

"And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

And straightway they left the nets, and followed him."

As Hobbs said in the classic Arthur and with Apologies to Gundry, this simple, illiterate, Galilean fisherman "has a wonderful economy of speech".



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page